# The truth about D-day.  It was BS.  Russia had already  annihilated germany



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 7, 2014)

The stupid press has been all aglow the last couple days over the 70th anniversay of D-day,  but many people think it was of no consequence.



> The Lies Grow More Audacious -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> June 6, 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 7, 2014)

I've heard this many times.  In russia it's taken for granted that THEY  won WW2 and the brits and yanks simply grabbed the glory.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 7, 2014)

Mods...please send this to the Conspiracy Theory forum....Thanks


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 7, 2014)

The Ruskies were absolutely no help at Okinawa tho.


----------



## shart_attack (Jun 7, 2014)

On a related note, you can now get season one of the FX drama "The Americans" at your local Target and Costco stores.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 7, 2014)

America and england actually committed a holocaust and focused on urban bombing and killing millions of german civilians while the rooskies killed the german soldiers.   That's what wins wars.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 7, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> The Ruskies were absolutely no help at Okinawa tho.



No one said they were.  America won the pacific war  almost singlehandedly and everyone agrees with that.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 7, 2014)

thereisnospoon said:


> Mods...please send this to the Conspiracy Theory forum....Thanks




You idiot.  Now every time someone questions an american history book,  it's a conspiracy theory???.  THINK


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 7, 2014)

American INDUSTRY won the war.  Without it, the Soviets would have collapsed.


----------



## guno (Jun 7, 2014)

thereisnospoon said:


> Mods...please send this to the Conspiracy Theory forum....Thanks



Not a Conspiracy Theory , the soviets broke the back of the German army in the battle of Stalingrad it's not some Conspiracy Theory but history. D-day was the finish of Germany. Learn some history.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/features/9942742/stalingrad-second-world-war.html

Stalingrad involved more than two million troops and lasted 200 days, and was virtually unprecedented in intensity and ferocity.

The Soviet army also suffered huge losses &#8211; 478,741 men dead. Even though many of these lives could have been saved, their tremendous sacrifice was not in vain. The Wehrmacht&#8217;s losses at Stalingrad &#8211; not just in men, but in supplies of arms and materiel &#8211; brought Germany to the brink of a military, political and economic crisis.
The debacle on the banks of the Volga River also left a deep imprint on the Wehrmacht&#8217;s morale. The rate of desertion and executions of German servicemen increased markedly after their defeat at Stalingrad.
While German soldiers became less determined and came to fear being outflanked or encircled, some politicians and leading army officers even began plotting against Hitler.
The Red Army&#8217;s victory in Stalingrad shook not just Hitler, but his Axis satellites. The pro-Nazi Italian, Romanian, Hungarian and Finnish leaders started looking for a pretext to pull out of the war and ignored Hitler&#8217;s orders to send troops to the Eastern Front. From 1943, whole Romanian, Hungarian and Italian units began to surrender to the Red Army, while Japan and Turkey also abandoned plans to declare war on the Soviet Union.
Thus, it was Stalingrad that broke the back of the Wehrmacht and marked the key turning point in favor of the Allies.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 7, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > The Ruskies were absolutely no help at Okinawa tho.
> ...



It was a joke---Lighten up, Francis.


----------



## guno (Jun 7, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> American INDUSTRY won the war.  Without it, the Soviets would have collapsed.



Yes there was lend lease to the soviets, But they built up their our war machine and it was intact and fed their army with food and weapons. Making moronic claims doesn't make them real

Learn some basic history

Some pesky facts 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II


----------



## guno (Jun 7, 2014)

guno said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > American INDUSTRY won the war.  Without it, the Soviets would have collapsed.
> ...




Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II
Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## guno (Jun 7, 2014)

guno said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



The Soviet Formula for Success in World War II: Deep Operations to Defense in Depth 
Military History Online - The Soviet Formula for Success in World War II: Deep Operations to Defense in Depth


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 8, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> The Ruskies were absolutely no help at Okinawa tho.



At Okinawa, no?  

At getting Japan to Surrender? 

Absolutely.  

Japan surrendered within a week of Russia entering the Pacific War.  

Probably because they rolled up Manchuria in a week and were breathing down their necks in Korea.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 8, 2014)

guno said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > American INDUSTRY won the war.  Without it, the Soviets would have collapsed.
> ...



The Soviets could build an army...but they could not feed, clothe, or transport it!  By 1944, HALF the trucks in the Red Army were American. (Most were 2.5-ton Studebakers, along with Dodge M-37's an Willys Jeeps.)  It was common for a Soviet soldier to be wearing American clothing, eating American rations, ride to the front on a train pulled by an American locomotive (the Soviets built <100 from 1941-45; by 1945, 70% of their rolling stock was American), and go into combat on a T-34 built with American machine tools, supported by Katyushas on American trucks and filled with american explosives, covered by Il-2's burning American avgas. (The Soviets couldn't make 100-octane fuel.)


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 8, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> The Soviets could build an army...but they could not feed, clothe, or transport it!  By 1944, HALF the trucks in the Red Army were American. (Most were 2.5-ton Studebakers, along with Dodge M-37's an Willys Jeeps.)  It was common for a Soviet soldier to be wearing American clothing, eating American rations, ride to the front on a train pulled by an American locomotive (the Soviets built <100 from 1941-45; by 1945, 70% of their rolling stock was American), and go into combat on a T-34 built with American machine tools, supported by Katyushas on American trucks and filled with american explosives, covered by Il-2's burning American avgas. (The Soviets couldn't make 100-octane fuel.)



HAHAHA.  That's what american textbooks say and it's all crap you fool.  Nobody in russia believes any of it. Stalin was furious at his "allies" because of how little they helped him.


----------



## blastoff (Jun 8, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> America and england actually committed a holocaust and focused on urban bombing and killing millions of german civilians while the rooskies killed the german soldiers.   That's what wins wars.



Guess that explains why Russian civilians were treated so nicely by the invading German forces.


----------



## dannyboys (Jun 8, 2014)

Sure a lot of bull shit flying today.
Wars are won by breaking the will of the citizenry. By destroying the 'means of production'.
Without America's military industrial complex feeding the Soviet military they would have lost the war on the Eastern Front.
I agree that Stalin had every right to be very pissed off with Churchill and Roosevelt. However, it is a historical fact that prior to the war Stalin and Hitler were allied. Hitler double-crossed Stalin. Stalin then went cap in hand to Churchill who was NOT going to be 'rolled' by Stalin.
I maintain that had Hitler not invaded Russia Stalin would have told Hitler he could do/have whatever he wanted in Western Europe as long as Russia was left alone to take over all of Asia.
All you semi-educated 'experts' need to read a few hundred books on world history, as I have and still am, before you make grand pronouncements on what was as VERY complicated world back them.
You may as well start back during the 1500's if you really want to understand the currents that brought the world to two wars.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 8, 2014)

shootspeeder's evidence explodes his OP "The truth about D-day. It was BS. Russia had already annihilated Germany".  But if it is true, that means the Russians would have won the war without US help.

Which is what the Russians said they did and would have done whether we helped or not.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > The Ruskies were absolutely no help at Okinawa tho.
> ...



Pure speculation. They had atomic bombs landing on their cities and many still did not want to surrender.


----------



## Toro (Jun 8, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> The stupid press has been all aglow the last couple days over the 70th anniversay of D-day,  but many people think it was of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Those "many people" are wrong. 

You anti-Americans are hilarious.


----------



## Toro (Jun 8, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> I've heard this many times.  In russia it's taken for granted that THEY  won WW2 and the brits and yanks simply grabbed the glory.



Go back to Russia then.


----------



## SteadyMercury (Jun 8, 2014)

Toro said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard this many times.  In russia it's taken for granted that THEY  won WW2 and the brits and yanks simply grabbed the glory.
> ...


Can you take a rascal mobility scooter on a plane?


----------



## KGB (Jun 8, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> The stupid press has been all aglow the last couple days over the 70th anniversay of D-day,  but many people think it was of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



it is true that the Soviets bore the brunt of Nazi aggression, but it is disingenuous to suggest they single handedly won the European part of the war.   Especially given that the Germans came within striking distance of Moscow.  The Germans probably lost their spirit against the Soviets, but it was really a two-front war that did them in.  I'll give the Soviets huge props for carrying the water, but they came damn close to losing the war as well.


----------



## Peach (Jun 8, 2014)

KGB said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > The stupid press has been all aglow the last couple days over the 70th anniversay of D-day,  but many people think it was of no consequence.
> ...



On this, we agree. Without the rest of the Allies, the Soviets may would most likely have fallen. They suffered starvation, and an incredible loss of the population. Guess who German soldiers wanted to surrender to, at the end? US soldiers. The Soviets were brutal to surviving German soldiers......and civilians.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 8, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > The Soviets could build an army...but they could not feed, clothe, or transport it!  By 1944, HALF the trucks in the Red Army were American. (Most were 2.5-ton Studebakers, along with Dodge M-37's an Willys Jeeps.)  It was common for a Soviet soldier to be wearing American clothing, eating American rations, ride to the front on a train pulled by an American locomotive (the Soviets built <100 from 1941-45; by 1945, 70% of their rolling stock was American), and go into combat on a T-34 built with American machine tools, supported by Katyushas on American trucks and filled with american explosives, covered by Il-2's burning American avgas. (The Soviets couldn't make 100-octane fuel.)
> ...



Once more for the slow kid: the Soviets could build an army. But they could not FEED or TRANSPORT it! (Also note: the Germans overran most of their farmland in 1941.) In late 1941, the supplies arriving via Lend-Lease EXCEEDED what the Soviets could provide for themselves! Offhand: in late-November, 1941, there were <700 tanks for the defense of Moscow, and about 500 were obsolete. By December, western (mostly British) tanks were about a third of the armor strength! By July, 1942, there were about 2000 western tanks in the Red Army.

They also supplied hundreds of fighters...Hurricanes and Tomahawks, head and shoulders superior to the outdated I-16 and I-153 fighters the Soviets still fielded. In early 1942, non-Soviet planes were 15% of those defending Moscow. Most of the Northern Fleet's fighter strength was Hurricanes, defending Murmansk and the critical Lake Ladoga ice road to Leningrad. Also note: the second-leading Soviet ace flew a P-39!

Another less-known thing delivered was a huge quantity of machine tools...many of which the Soviets could not make, and all of which were head and shoulders superior to anything they had!

And again: they could not TRANSPORT their troops. They received ~2000 locomotives and thousands of railcars. By the end of the war, most Soviet rolling stock was US-built!

Not to mention the 2,000,000 TONS of food they received. Or the half-million trucks & jeeps. (Note: that's more than TWICE what they built from 1941-45!)

Stalin was furious because nobody had ever told him "no" and lived.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 8, 2014)

jarlaxle messes it up and refuses to properly analyze the evidence.

The Russians were able to feed and move their forces.

American aid helped them to end the war about three years earlier than it otherwise most likely would have ended.

Unless the Nazis got the bomb.

And this is what SS, jarlaxle, and PC refuse to admit.


----------



## Peach (Jun 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> jarlaxle messes it up and refuses to properly analyze the evidence.
> 
> The Russians were able to feed and move their forces.
> 
> ...



The war had several fronts; the Russians were aided by an early rainy season, which bogged down Axis vehicles also. D-Day undoubtedly saved millions of lives, in Europe, Africa and Asia.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 8, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



The thing was about Atom Bombs.  

They weren't that big of a deal at the time.  The Hiroshima bomb has nowhere near the yield of today's devices.   We were going far more damage to Japan with conventional bombing.  The Japanese STILL thought they could get a negotiated peace that would leave them with some of their gains in Asia. 

When the USSR entered the war, that was it.  They knew that they either faced surrender to the Americans or being partitioned like Germany.  

Obviously, after the war, everyone started to realize what had been let out of the bottle with nukes, but at the time, not so much.  It was just another weapon.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You're still speculating. Show me where Russia's advances influenced the decision by Japan's emperor to surrender.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2014)

I give Stalin credit for running the us war effort almost to his total advantage. He also managed to get Japan to attack the USA instead of their more obvious enemy the USSR

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 8, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



You mean other than the records of the Japanese High Command?  

Stalin ? not the Bomb ? made Japan surrender, ending WW2

The impact of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different, however. Once the Soviet Union had declared war, Stalin could no longer act as a mediator  he was now a belligerent. So the diplomatic option was wiped out by the Soviet move. The effect on the military situation was equally dramatic. Most of Japans best troops had been shifted to the southern part of the home islands. Japans military had correctly guessed that the likely first target of an American invasion would be the southernmost island of Kyushu. The once proud Kwangtung army in Manchuria, for example, was a shell of its former self because its best units had been shifted away to defend Japan itself. When the Russians invaded Manchuria, they sliced through what had once been an elite army and many Russian units only stopped when they ran out of gas. The Soviet 16th Army  100,000 strong  launched an invasion of the southern half of Sakhalin Island. Their orders were to mop up Japanese resistance there, and then  within 10 to 14 days  be prepared to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japans home islands. The Japanese force tasked with defending Hokkaido, the 5th Area Army, was under strength at two divisions and two brigades, and was in fortified positions on the east side of the island. The Soviet plan of attack called for an invasion of Hokkaido from the west.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 8, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I give Stalin credit for running the us war effort almost to his total advantage. He also managed to get Japan to attack the USA instead of their more obvious enemy the USSR
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk



Did he do this using his Evil Commie Mind Control Powers?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I give Stalin credit for running the us war effort almost to his total advantage. He also managed to get Japan to attack the USA instead of their more obvious enemy the USSR
> ...


his spy network. the majority of senior staff at the FDR white house reported directly to Stalin

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 8, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Sooo, ummmm, okay.  Exactly how did that influence what Japan did?  

Japan attacked us because they wanted to take Southeast Asia after all the European powers were preoccupied fighting Germany.   The US was the only power that had a large enough fleet to stop them.  Pearl Harbor was supposed to fix that.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > The Ruskies were absolutely no help at Okinawa tho.
> ...



^ 

LOL.

Yeah.

Those A-bombs had nothing to do with it.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 8, 2014)

QUOTE[QUOShootSpeeders;9226910]I've heard this many times.  In russia it's taken for granted that THEY  won WW2 and the brits and yanks simply grabbed the glory.[/QUOTE]

Um, yeah, about the  Russians,   that wise man Uncle joe stalin was fast friends even signed a non agression pact with Hitler ...took parts of Poland. The price the Russias paid was high, maybe it was hubris.


----------



## Politico (Jun 9, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Mods...please send this to the Conspiracy Theory forum....Thanks
> ...



No one is questioning history books. They are questioning the loony theory that Germany not having to divert 40% of their forces to fight a second front. Anyone with any comprehension of how war works knows that. It wasn't until after the invasion when the German Army Group Centre was gutted for the western front that they were finally able (with our help) to break through at Lviv.

So if you want to argue WWII have at it. But expect to lose.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 9, 2014)

Politico said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



How many german soldiers did the rooskies kill or capture and how many did the americans kill or capture.  That's all you need to know.


----------



## Politico (Jun 10, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > ShootSpeeders said:
> ...



After throwing 1.5 million soldiers (who were shot if they retreated ) at the depleted lines the Germans lost around 800,000 men in two weeks. Is that the best you have?


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



a blog ?  please


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2014)

So you admit you have nothing, then? 

Sorry, Russia entering the war prompted Japan to surrender, not Atomic bombs.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 10, 2014)

Politico said:


> After throwing 1.5 million soldiers (who were shot if they retreated ) at the depleted lines the Germans lost around 800,000 men in two weeks. Is that the best you have?



Got a link for that "shot if they retreated" part?


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> So you admit you have nothing, then?
> 
> Sorry, Russia entering the war prompted Japan to surrender, not Atomic bombs.



Dude---it's one's man opinion--not records from the Japanese High Command as promised.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> So you admit you have nothing, then?
> 
> Sorry, Russia entering the war prompted Japan to surrender, not Atomic bombs.



Then why did they only surrender after the 2nd bomb?

Why did the emperor's surrender broadcast specifically reference the "new and cruel weapon?"

Exactly how were those Russian Divisions going to cross the bodies of water required to get onto the Japanese home islands?  I don't recall them having any amphibious capability except for river crossings.


----------



## editec (Jun 10, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> American INDUSTRY won the war.  Without it, the Soviets would have collapsed.



Partially correct

American industry came into play mostly at the beginning of the war, Jarl.  MY father and thousand of other merchant marines delivered a lot of that material to the Soviet Union.  

However, Russia's war industries in the middle and later part of the war produced staggering amounts of war material.  


If you'd like to know just how much the Soviet  industries produced this might help:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/harrison/public/dfc1994postprint.pdf


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Are you really *THAT* clueless? The Japanese had all of SouthEast Asia without attacking us.

Stalin dreaded the prospect of fighting the Germans  AND the Japanese. Remember, your boys purges wiped out the Army Officer Corp and their only effective leadership was to stand behind the frontline troops and shoot them if they fled. In December 1941, the Germans had the Spires of the Kremlin in the field glasses. Had Japan declared war on the USSR, well what fun that would have been. Sigh.

Instead Stalin's spies put the US on a collision course with Japan.

Again, I give Stalin full credit for manipulating his American sock puppet FDR into causing war between US and Japan.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> So you admit you have nothing, then?
> 
> Sorry, Russia entering the war prompted Japan to surrender, not Atomic bombs.



Joe, really, shut the fuck up.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 10, 2014)

The Stalinist version of WWII. Too bad the US and Britain didn't throw in with Germany and kick the Russians communist asses.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 10, 2014)

Those two A-Bombs on Japan convinced them to surrender. If we had dropped a couple on the Soviet Union I wonder how Stalin would of liked that.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 10, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Those two A-Bombs on Japan convinced them to surrender. If we had dropped a couple on the Soviet Union I wonder how Stalin would of liked that.



I think that, right after importing negroes as slaves, nuking civilians..._twice_...is probably the worst thing this country has done.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 10, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Those two A-Bombs on Japan convinced them to surrender. If we had dropped a couple on the Soviet Union I wonder how Stalin would of liked that.
> ...



 If there was no Pearl Harbor attack...would have been no A-Bombs dropped. I think we should of dropped 10 myself.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 10, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



So for example, if iraq did something *REALLY* bad with some _"material"_ that they sneaked across our (unprotected) border and caused a *LOT* of "trouble" in a civilian area like say, n.y. for instance.....it would be ok with you because we attacked baghdad for no good reason?

In other words you're ok with nuking civilians?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> The Stalinist version of WWII. Too bad the US and Britain didn't throw in with Germany and kick the Russians communist asses.



With US air cover, German industry would have been at full production in 2 weeks.

Once the USSR commanders started telling their leaders how the US Army AirForce was wasting entire Soviet armored divisions, they would have sued for peace and headed back to their original border


----------



## Picaro (Jun 10, 2014)

editec said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > American INDUSTRY won the war.  Without it, the Soviets would have collapsed.
> ...



I'll add that the Soviet generals at the front much preferred the American made trucks to carry their ammo, fuel, etc. than their own copies of the same models. The T-34, cited by most as the 'best' all-around tank of the war, didn't become 'great' until after the results of an analysis of it by American engineers and testers in 1943 along with suggested improvements in its design were sent back to the Soviet Union in 1943; most of the improvements weren't really put into the production line until 1944. Before then it had lots of problems that crippled it in many situations.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 10, 2014)

Stalin held back from invading Japan until it was a cinch the Americans had already knocked out Japan's defensive abilities; then they took a few thinly defended islands and hoped for more territorial gains, without doing anything to earn them re defeating Japan. I think some of those islands are still contested over today via diplomatic wrangling.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 10, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Your scenario is off. During WWII...there were no civilians. especially after death toll in Okinawa and the ferocity with which the Japanese would defend their island. Don't compare Iraq to Pearl harbor BTW. As for nukes...I would have blasted the shit out of Tora Bora region when Bin Laden was there back in 2001. I have no problem with civilian deaths. Part of war. 9-11...new type of war for US. Flight 93 civilians won the first battle in the War on Terror and gave their lives to do it. After 9-11 I will guarantee with great certainty that 90% of the Muslim world was smiling inside and had "serves America right" going through their heads. So fuck them too.


----------



## hunarcy (Jun 10, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Those two A-Bombs on Japan convinced them to surrender. If we had dropped a couple on the Soviet Union I wonder how Stalin would of liked that.
> ...



It was tough, but it saved Japanese and American lives.  An invasion was estimated to cost 1.2 million to 4 million Allied deaths and 5 million to 10 million Japanese deaths.  

Preparations for Invasion of Japan | World War II Database


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > So you admit you have nothing, then?
> ...



Because it was actually a cruel weapon? I mean I know we Americans like to lecture other countries, but we are the only country that ever used a nuke on PEOPLE. 



martybegan said:


> Exactly how were those Russian Divisions going to cross the bodies of water required to get onto the Japanese home islands?  I don't recall them having any amphibious capability except for river crossings.



Um, how do you think they got soldiers to Salahkin?  (That's the Russian Island north of Japan, but Japan owned half of it between 1905 and 1945)  They moved them by boat. 

The reality was, Japan didn't know how many atom bombs we had, but it was probably a good guess we didn't have that many. 

But they did know that the Russians had mopped up the Kwangung army in less than a week, and were heading into Korea.  

They wouldn't need a large amphibious force to invade Hokkaido. The Japanese had two divisions against 20 or so for the Russians, and they were deployed on the Opposite side of the island. 

You see, The Japanese built their whole war plan on repelling an American invasion coming form the South and East, and they figured it would take months and months to move troops from Europe to the Pacific.  

And now they were faced with the prospect of facing battle hardened Red Army Units that had just put Germany down like a dog. 

OH, yeah, and then they heard all the wonderful stories of how the Russians raped the shit out of German women.  They didn't want their mama-sans getting some of the same.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Please stop speculating--link us to some facts


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> Are you really *THAT* clueless? The Japanese had all of SouthEast Asia without attacking us.
> 
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> [
> 
> Please stop speculating--link us to some facts



Sorry, guy, I gave you facts.  Now you are just being obtuse.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 10, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...



By the standards of the day, both cities WERE military targets.  Hiroshima had comsiderable industry, Nagasaki was the site of Japan's largest torpedo factory.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 10, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



And that's not even considering that the almost-certain mass famine in the winter of 1945-46.  Even WITH American aid, it was a lean winter.  Honestly...I would definitely put 5,000,000 Japanese dead as a VERY low estimate.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Which is why Fat Man should have been dropped on the Kremlin.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 10, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Those two A-Bombs on Japan convinced them to surrender. If we had dropped a couple on the Soviet Union I wonder how Stalin would of liked that.



We didn't have 4 a-bombs.  Just the two we took from the jerries. The manhattan project was a hoax.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 10, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> [
> And that's not even considering that the almost-certain mass famine in the winter of 1945-46.  Even WITH American aid, it was a lean winter.  Honestly...I would definitely put 5,000,000 Japanese dead as a VERY low estimate.




Here we go again with the "humanitarian bombing" talk so beloved by the war-mongers.


----------



## Politico (Jun 11, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > After throwing 1.5 million soldiers (who were shot if they retreated ) at the depleted lines the Germans lost around 800,000 men in two weeks. Is that the best you have?
> ...





ShootSpeeders said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Those two A-Bombs on Japan convinced them to surrender. If we had dropped a couple on the Soviet Union I wonder how Stalin would of liked that.
> ...



OMG this is getting epic now.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 11, 2014)

guno said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > American INDUSTRY won the war.  Without it, the Soviets would have collapsed.
> ...



I suggest YOU learn facts, With out US production the Soviets would have had no communications wire to control all their artillery, no trucks, no jeeps, no rolling stock no locomotives, not to mention the tanks planes and other commodities we sent them.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 11, 2014)

Jarlaxle said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



So in my scenario an iraqi terrorist could do something REALLY BAD in an american city and then say it was a legitimate "military" target because it had industry that supported "imperialism"..or whatever their complaint is...and that would be valid in your estimation?

In other words, to you, nuking civilians is not a war crime if there is any "industry" around them.


----------



## Rotagilla (Jun 11, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Your scenario is off. During WWII...there were no civilians. especially after death toll in Okinawa and the ferocity with which the Japanese would defend their island.



There was no need to ever "invade" japan. Don't tell me you really believe that propaganda?

Their army was defeated, their navy was defeated, their air force was defeated and they live on an island with no natural resources necessary to make and maintain a war effort.

They were done. 
Set up a blockade and wait them out. They aren't going anywhere and they can't grow enough food to support the population.
A couple months of blockaded ports and they would fold.



Bush92 said:


> Don't compare Iraq to Pearl harbor BTW. As for nukes...I would have blasted the shit out of Tora Bora region when Bin Laden was there back in 2001. I have no problem with civilian deaths. Part of war. 9-11...new type of war for US. Flight 93 civilians won the first battle in the War on Terror and gave their lives to do it. After 9-11 I will guarantee with great certainty that 90% of the Muslim world was smiling inside and had "serves America right" going through their heads. So fuck them too.




So nuking civilians is ok with you. Great. 
If someone did it to america for lets say..illegally invading iraq.... it would be ok because you have "no problem with civilian deaths"


Flight 93 was shot down, by the way. Save that propaganda story about  civilians winning the first battle..etc..blah..blah..."let's roll"..blah...blah...


----------



## dannyboys (Jun 11, 2014)

Daily photos from Russian cities | English Russia
Nuff said about russian technology.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 11, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> After 9-11 I will guarantee with great certainty that 90% of the Muslim world was smiling inside and had "serves America right" going through their heads.





Upon what do you base this "guarantee"?  





At least half this thread should be on the Conspiracy Forum.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2014)

For the Peanut Gallery, a decent book on Japan near the end of the war is the one cited here:

Japan and the End of World War II



> [SIZE=+1][SIZE=+2]_Those  who argue that American policy makers recognized that Japan was near  surrender when they chose to unleash atomic  weapons rest the core of  their case on selected excerpts of these diplomatic exchanges [between  Japan and the Soviets in the summer of 1945]. The first important defect  with this critique is that it simply ignores the fact that there were  two streams of decrypted Japanese messages.  Military Ultra showed  without exception Japan's armed forces girding for Armageddon.  If, as  American leaders correctly believed, the Imperial Army held the dominant  position in Japan, then the Ultra reports carried an unmistakable  political import...In face of this evidence, it is fantasy, not history,  to believe the end of the war was at hand before the use of the atomic  bomb._
> 
> [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+2][SIZE=-1] --- Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]​


... a little more at the link.

The review by Daniel Ford here at the Amazon book site here is also worth a read:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-The-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/067941424X[/ame]

And, an essay on Operation Ketsu-Go:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2014)

Wasn´t it the Soviet side that urged the West to open that frontier?


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 17, 2014)

Bleipriester said:


> Wasn´t it the Soviet side that urged the West to open that frontier?



Yes  Stalin begged for it as early as 1942.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn´t it the Soviet side that urged the West to open that frontier?
> ...


The mountains of Russian dead bodies under which he buried the Germans alive don´t give rise to be proud of the victory anyway.


----------



## bendog (Jun 17, 2014)

guno said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Mods...please send this to the Conspiracy Theory forum....Thanks
> ...



I think Speeders is a racist, so I don't respond to him, but the thread's a historical bait and switch.  While you're correct the Soviets had broken the Nazi's back by 6-6-44, note the OP conspiracist theory is that the Soviets were marching into Berlin.  That's bullshit.  The fact is they paused at Warsaw, threatening to make a separate peace with Hitler.  The Soviets certainly had no interest in making sure the Nazis didn't control France and the rest of western Europe.


----------



## Discombobulated (Jun 17, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> I've heard this many times.  In russia it's taken for granted that THEY  won WW2 and the brits and yanks simply grabbed the glory.



This kind of superficial historic characterization might almost make sense to people who's knowledge is based on pop culture revisionist nonsense.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> The stupid press has been all aglow the last couple days over the 70th anniversay of D-day,  but many people think it was of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







D-Day was absolutely necessary otherwise Stalin wouldn't have been yelling his head off demanding the opening of a second front since 1943.  The depth of your ignorance knows no bounds I see.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 17, 2014)

Peach said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > jarlaxle messes it up and refuses to properly analyze the evidence.
> ...



All of that is true, but does not undermine that, if the Germans did not develop the nuclear bomb, the Russians would have beaten the Reich.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 17, 2014)

westwall said:


> D-Day was absolutely necessary otherwise Stalin wouldn't have been yelling his head off demanding the opening of a second front since 1943.  The depth of your ignorance knows no bounds I see.



Not at all.  The Ruskies would have eventually won with or without Allied help.

Stalin wanted a second front to (1) weaken the Germans before his armies, (2) slow down Russian casualties, and (3) keep the Allies out of the Balkans.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...







The eastern front was a stalemate.  Manstein was a master of maneuver (as was Strachwitz) and they were able to grind the Soviets to a standstill.  Were it not for the D-Day invasion that stalemate would have held for at least 6 months giving the Germans time to perfect the Panther tank and fully develop the FW-190 D9+ series culminating in the TA-152 which was a world beater.  I won't even go into the ME-262 and Arado 234.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > D-Day was absolutely necessary otherwise Stalin wouldn't have been yelling his head off demanding the opening of a second front since 1943.  The depth of your ignorance knows no bounds I see.
> ...








Absolute horse shit.  The US alone GAVE the Soviets 600,000 trucks mobilizing their army.  We gave them millions of tons of food and munitions which had they not arrived when they did, would have spelled the end of the Soviet union.


----------



## Discombobulated (Jun 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > D-Day was absolutely necessary otherwise Stalin wouldn't have been yelling his head off demanding the opening of a second front since 1943.  The depth of your ignorance knows no bounds I see.
> ...



On what actual facts do you base these nearly interesting conclusions?


----------



## daveman (Jun 17, 2014)

Sure are a lot of retards getting weepy about the poor Communists.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 17, 2014)

Discombobulated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



A lifetime of reading WWII history.  The vast distances of the Union and the removal of industry beyond the Urals and the incredible population that kept producing service personnel and Hitler not ramping up the German war machine to full production as soon as possible.

3 of every 7 Soviets (and much higher in White Russia, Ukraine, etc) was killed or wounded, yet Stalin and his people would not give up.


----------



## Discombobulated (Jun 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



From the Seelow Heights to the end in Berlin the Soviets suffered over a million casualties.  The Germans were far from finished in 1944 and the Soviet Union could never have done it on their own.


----------



## Discombobulated (Jun 17, 2014)

By the same token it's also fair to say that the United States and Great Britain could never have defeated Germany without the Soviet Union.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 17, 2014)

The early Spring didn't delay the launch of Hitler's invasion, it was the instability on his southern flank, where the Greeks and other partisans were raising hell. The rains bogging them down that early in the year would slowed them, but not stopped them, and they would have been that much closer to Moscow. I think people forget that the German army wasn't all that mechanized, and still moved ammo, fuel, and supplies on donkey carts; the media focuses a lot on the Panzers, which gives a false impression of the entire German military as rolling along at 50 mph or something. The railheads and supply trains would have easily kept up with the Army even in the Spring. more so than they did later.

If Hitler hadn't become obsessed with taking Stalingrad and had just bypassed it, the Soviets would have been very limited in their offensive abilities, regardless of their production capabilities for years to come. Hitler beat himself in the East. He was a lousy strategist.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...







That just shows what poor fighters they were.  Anybody can go out and die for their country, it's the skilled warriors who KILL more than they lose who generally win.  The Germans bit off more than they could chew with their two front war.  Had the D-Day invasion not occurred the Soviets would have continued losing troops at the rate of 20 to one till they were simply used up.

Strachwitz led four Panzer IV's into the rear areas of the Soviets as they were preparing an attack, and destroyed 104 T-34's for no losses.  This happened over and over and over...


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 18, 2014)

Picaro said:


> The early Spring didn't delay the launch of Hitler's invasion, it was the instability on his southern flank, where the Greeks and other partisans were raising hell. The rains bogging them down that early in the year would slowed them, but not stopped them, and they would have been that much closer to Moscow. I think people forget that the German army wasn't all that mechanized, and still moved ammo, fuel, and supplies on donkey carts; the media focuses a lot on the Panzers, which gives a false impression of the entire German military as rolling along at 50 mph or something. The railheads and supply trains would have easily kept up with the Army even in the Spring. more so than they did later.
> 
> If Hitler hadn't become obsessed with taking Stalingrad and had just bypassed it, the Soviets would have been very limited in their offensive abilities, regardless of their production capabilities for years to come. Hitler beat himself in the East. He was a lousy strategist.


Stalingrad was a major industrial hot spot with lots of facilities producing military stuff. Tales about Stalingrad being a prestige object tell the half truth only. 

Supplies were largely transported by railways btw. But the Russian infrastructure was also a hard enemy for the Germans as it was terribly underdeveloped. 

German dispatch rider on Soviet "highway". Almost Impassable.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 18, 2014)

Bleipriester said:


> Stalingrad was a major industrial hot spot with lots of facilities producing military stuff. Tales about Stalingrad being a prestige object tell the half truth only.



All of which would have been useless without the oil fields, and Stalingrad was easily screened for long enough to take the oil fields, and could be taken later after the strategic goal for invading the south in the first place had been met. It wasn't that important strategically that it just had to be taken immediately by using infantry with no armor support. Train tracks are easily laid, and not a complex engineering feat.



> Supplies were largely transported by railways btw. But the Russian infrastructure was also a hard enemy for the Germans as it was terribly underdeveloped.


Yes, rails were the primary means of quick transport. Doesn't change much re the roads, as most of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union had crappy roads, so it wasn't a revelation that the going would be slow relative to modern eyes. The Soviets faced the same crappy roads and delays, so on balance it was a wash.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Discombobulated said:
> ...



Absolutely false, Westwall Snow.  You are cherry picking, which would get you a D, if the prof was generous, on this topic.  The Russians stopped the Germans in front of Moscow by themselves, at Stalingrad by themselves, and at Kursk by themselves.

You know nothing, Westwall Snow.


----------



## Discombobulated (Jun 18, 2014)

The theory that the Normandy landings were unnecessary because the Soviets had already won the war is an idea that simply has no merit, no historic basis of any kind.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 18, 2014)

One only needs to check out the timelines of Lend-Lease deliveries to see that the Soviets weren't stopping the Germans on their own. While the T-34 was the largest number of armor units at Kursk, the Soviets concentrated the U.S. and British tanks in the salient itself, for instance. You can also find that the number of locomotives in use produced by the Soviets was dwarfed by the number of locomotives shipped over to them by 1942, something like around 900 or so to 90. Somebody already mentioned the trucks, and then there are the uniforms, ammo, etc.

I forgot to add in my previous post that the driv toward the oil fields would have also endangered the Lend-Lease route through Persia as well as idling the Soviet motor divisions and armor, and their aircraft would have been grounded without the AV fuel shipments from the West.


----------



## bendog (Jun 18, 2014)

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



LOL.  Stop DIGGING.


----------



## bendog (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



All true.  However, it's a curious quirk that both Hitler and Stalin were paranoid psychopaths.  Yet, Russia managed it's resources to produce relatively low tech T-34s and single engine attack/fighter aircraft, while Germany fritted away it's industrial advantage.   I wonder why the difference.  The soviets even managed to grow their economy at a higher gdp than did the US in the early post-war.  We dismissed this as they were very good at producing steel and concrete and building dams, but when it came to innovation, we were better.  I'm not sure that's an adequate explanation.

And, as to the ABomb.  I wonder how much the Soviet penetration of the Manhattan Project would have helped them.  The historical thriller Homeland presupposes Hitler was able to fight Stalin to a draw by using nukes.  Yet, was it not for the Final Solution, the Manhattan Project would have been down a scientist or two.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

All we know for certain, was that if given the go-ahead, Patton along with the reconstituted German divisions would have driven the Soviets back from Berlin to their original borders no later than Fall 1945


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> All we know for certain, was that if given the go-ahead, Patton along with the reconstituted German divisions would have driven the Soviets back from Berlin to their original borders no later than Fall 1945



Absolutely wrong.

(1) Patton did not have the weight of mass to have delivered a rupturing blow in the Soviet line.

(2) Patton did not have the divisions that he would have needed and none were available in the continental US.

(3) The USAAF were detailing most of his air assets to the Pacific.

(4) The British, French, and Polish allies would not have joined such an offensive.

(5) The American population would have lynched everyone in DC for even suggesting a continuation of the war: mothers wanted their children home as soon as possible.

(6) The US had two atom bombs for Japan, and it would have taken until November before another one could have been produced.

Frank, you are reading far too many "what if" Harry Turtledove series without reading the actual history surrounding the concept for such.


----------



## Samson (Jun 18, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> All we know for certain, was that if given the go-ahead, Patton along with the reconstituted German divisions would have driven the Soviets back from Berlin to their original borders no later than Fall 1945



What exactly would it take to "reconstitute a German Division?"


Add hot water? Like instant oatmeal?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

Reactionary Soviet Apologist Starkey jumps to Stalin's rescue.

The bulk of US Air power would have stayed in Germany. Without air cover, the Soviet Armored columns would have been target practice. With USAAF cover the factories in Germany would have been up and running in no time. 

We would have retrofitted the German 8.8cm gun on all US tanks.  Stalin would have sued for peace before the leave were turning color in New England


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

_Ad homming _ a solid American veteran and citizen merely demonstrates you have no balls or stick on this OP, Frank.

The bulk of USAAF did not stay in Europe because it was going to Japan.  Frank, your alternate history, to be credible, has to reside in the reality of the situation.

The Soviet army and air merely needed to be on the defensive.

It would have taken until winter to refit the armaments on our armor.

The Germans would not have participated: there is no way that Patton would have ever permitted the Germans to rearm and retrain, much less Eisenhower agreeing.

Frank, truly, grow up.


----------



## Yarddog (Jun 18, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> I've heard this many times.  In russia it's taken for granted that THEY  won WW2 and the brits and yanks simply grabbed the glory.




Right,, so as I understand it ,  before WW2  US military capability had been downsized

and we really wernt capable of mounting a major offensive early on. And there was that  little shipyard incident that happened at Pearl Harbour furthur limiting our logistical ability.  I guess its easy to sit here today we should have invaded earlier than we did but I thinnk it probably 
would have ended in failure had we launched to early. 

I imagine it was noo little thing to our GIs who were actually there. easy to sit back now and hen peck though

Without the US a lot more soviets would have died,  we bombed the shit out of their infrasturcture as i recall limiting there ability to move fuel and ammunition.


----------



## bendog (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> _Ad homming _ a solid American veteran and citizen merely demonstrates you have no balls or stick on this OP, Frank.
> 
> The bulk of USAAF did not stay in Europe because it was going to Japan.  Frank, your alternate history, to be credible, has to reside in the reality of the situation.
> 
> ...



Even upgunning the old Sherman wouldn't have made it match for the Soviets.  Historical revisionism at its worst.  

Reagan actually made the point that if we'd really have wanted to end the Soviet state via a military attack, we'd simply have done so in 1946, when only we had the ABomb.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

bendog said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > _Ad homming _ a solid American veteran and citizen merely demonstrates you have no balls or stick on this OP, Frank.
> ...



Just so.  The Soviet line of armor was better than what we had, period.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> _Ad homming _ a solid American veteran and citizen merely demonstrates you have no balls or stick on this OP, Frank.
> 
> The bulk of USAAF did not stay in Europe because it was going to Japan.  Frank, your alternate history, to be credible, has to reside in the reality of the situation.
> 
> ...



Jake, you might be right about retrofitting the Shermans Easy 8's with the 8.8cm Pak, I'll give you that. The Germans would have JUMPED at the chance to focus solely on the Soviets. I don't know how you know anything about WWII and believe that the Germans would have sat that our.

I'm only _ad homming_ your reflexive defense of Obama and Stalin, other that that, you're a great American.

Where was the USAAF headed, Guam? Midway? US Carriers? You know they only hold so many planes each. Once it was obvious that Stalin had no interest in heading back home, the planes should have stayed in Germany


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Patton and Zhukov met at the end of WWII. Zhukov was bragging that the latest Soviet tanks could lob a shell over 7 mile, Patton responded,...

 My dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon which can throw a shell seven miles. Patton answered, Indeed? Well, my dear Marshal Zhukov, let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they had closed to less than seven hundred yards Id have them court-martialed for cowardice. It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence. 

https://nobility.org/2012/10/29/patton-silences-zhukov/


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

You know nothing, Crusader Snow.

My reflexive defense is always to take the objective unbiased point of view, unlike like you and the rest of the American fascist right.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You know nothing, Crusader Snow.
> 
> My reflexive defense is always to take the objective unbiased point of view, unlike like you and the rest of the American fascist right.



Jake, read the Zhukov Patton exchange above


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You know nothing, Crusader Snow.
> ...



Frank, consider the objective unbiased points before you get to the unbalanced slanted evaluation of the exchange.

I am serious, Frank, you would get an F in a WWII college course if you tried pulling this off.


----------



## SillyWabbit (Jun 18, 2014)

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but, who gives a shit?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




My dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon which can throw a shell seven miles. Patton answered, Indeed? Well, my dear Marshal Zhukov, let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they had closed to less than seven hundred yards Id have them court-martialed for cowardice. It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence. 

https://nobility.org/2012/10/29/patton-silences-zhukov/

Jake, this really happened. Patton stunned your favorite general into silence


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...








The Germans outran their supplies Jake.  The critical error that they made was launching Barbarossa with one months reserve of fuel and munitions.  The Germans were stopped by the Soviets at Stalingrad, and Leningrad.  At Moscow the Germans made it to the outskirts and simply ran out of fuel.  The Soviets had nothing left at that point to stop them.  Guderian and Co. had destroyed the Soviet armies outside of Smolensk and after that it was a free ride.  Kursk is a special case because of the Lucy group.  You're an "expert" Jake.  Who was the Lucy group?

You know when you resort to petty insults and lies you lose all credibility.  I am happy to debate you on any aspect of WWII history but leave the juvenile insults at the door.

   [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

westwall, you demonstrate an incredible lack of knowledge about the Eastern Front.

Now I want you to go back through the posts and checking out why the arguments are lining up as they are lining up.

I won't debate the topic with somebody who is being deliberately ignorant about the subject.

I need you to twist your  philosophy to the facts not vice versa.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The cover story was that the Russians captured a German engineer the night before the attack was to start...yeah. a single German engineer detailed the Kursk plans.

Uh huh.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > All we know for certain, was that if given the go-ahead, Patton along with the reconstituted German divisions would have driven the Soviets back from Berlin to their original borders no later than Fall 1945
> ...










Patton didn't need the mass anymore.  By the time the Soviets entered Berlin they were spent.  I am not advocating that Patton should have attacked, nor that it would have been easy but by then we had undisputed air supremacy.  

Nothing moved on the ground unless we let it.  The Soviets would have experienced the exact same thing the Germans did whenever the weather was even barely OK.  There were some very good aircraft that the Soviets had come up with, but the Gloster Meteor was operational and there was nothing in the Soviet inventory to counter that.  Nothing.

It would have been long and bloody, but in the end the Soviets would have been beaten back to their original borders if not beyond.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

bendog said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > _Ad homming _ a solid American veteran and citizen merely demonstrates you have no balls or stick on this OP, Frank.
> ...







Really?  Tell that to the Israelis who used up gunned Ishermans to defeat* T-55s* in 1967.  I grant you the T-34/85 is superior to the Sherman but what about the M-26 Pershing you're ignoring?  We had two battalions of those in Germany at the end with loads more on the way and they were a match for everything the Soviets had up to the JSIII.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...







Except for the Pershing, which when the two met in Korea, was overwhelmingly superior to the T-34/85.


----------



## Samson (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Opinion based on What?

You have not offered a shread of evidence to support any of your preposterous claims.

I could just as easily claim the Soviets had Ray Gun technology found on an Alien Spacecraft that had crashed in Siberia.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



Jake is an expert on all things relating to the USSR.

He just is


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall, you demonstrate an incredible lack of knowledge about the Eastern Front.
> 
> Now I want you to go back through the posts and checking out why the arguments are lining up they are lining up.
> 
> ...







Jake I would wager I know so much more than you about the Eastern Front that it wouldn't be funny.  I have walked the battlefields with the warriors from both sides who fought there.  I have actually been in the Grain Elevator in Stalingrad, you?  It is exactly the same as it was during the battle.  I have wandered through the fields around Kharkov and Bryansk, Smolensk, Cholm, and Demyansk.   You?  

Jason D. Mark is one of the premier authors on eastern front military history and is a good friend of mine.  You should read his books, here's a link to one of them and you can follow your nose from there...[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Death-Leaping-Horseman-Division-Stalingrad/dp/0811714047/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1403123837&sr=8-1&keywords=jason+d+mark[/ame]
You'll learn a lot more than the Time Life series you seem to be reading.


----------



## Samson (Jun 18, 2014)

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > westwall, you demonstrate an incredible lack of knowledge about the Eastern Front.
> ...



Yeah Jake, I bet you never even considered:


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

Westwall, then you have learned nothing.

Jason is one of many, many historians.  But you have made up your mind to wallow in a belief not evidence and investigation.

That you put a faith belief in front of evidence and investigation is your issue not mine.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

Samson said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Yup, damn those ray guns.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Westwall, then you have learned nothing.
> 
> Jason is one of many, many historians.  But you have made up your mind to wallow in a belief not evidence and investigation.
> 
> That you put a faith belief in front of evidence and investigation is your issue not mine.







You're long on words and short on facts Jake.  Better step up to the plate and show us what you got or you can slink off and hide.  Makes no matter to me, but I can give you chapter and verse with FACTS.  You?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

Westwall, I even stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

But I am not an expert on hotels.

And you know very little about the war on the Eastern Front no matter how many battlefields, tours, excursions, and special breakfasts you attended.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

Westwall, I gave you the facts, and you ignore them.


----------



## bendog (Jun 18, 2014)

I guess those interviews with Brit and US tankers bemoaning the Shermans lack of firepower and tendency to "brew up" were urban legends.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Westwall, I even stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
> 
> But I am not an expert on hotels.
> 
> And you know very little about the war on the Eastern Front no matter how many battlefields, tours, excursions, and special breakfasts you attended.








Blah, blah, blah,...insult.  Is not a meaningful discussion Jake.  I wasn't on tours, I was with the authors doing their research.  I've been to Russia many, many, many times.  In fact just a couple of years ago I attended the wedding of one of my best friends in St. Petersburg.

You talk real big Jake but it is obvious to everyone who is watching this little drama, that you really are out of your depth.  Best to run off now before you really get embarrassed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

I will send you and Frank a good reading list on the Eastern Front and on Patton's Folly.

You simply do not understand the subject.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

bendog said:


> I guess those interviews with Brit and US tankers bemoaning the Shermans lack of firepower and tendency to "brew up" were urban legends.








No, they were facts.  Just like the fact that the Israelis used the Ishermans and Super Shermans to devastating effect on T-55's, which were arguably the best tank in the world in the 1950's.

Your problem is you think one dimensionally.  Anyone who has studied anything knows that armor is best used where there is NO enemy armor.  Patton understood that very well.  He let our air power deal with the German tanks.  

There is no question that Wittmann in his Tiger was a fearsome thing (just ask the Brit 7th Armored Div. veterans) but in the end he was killed along with his crew by either tanks, or aircraft or a lowly AT gun.  No one knows exactly who got him....but got he was.

The Soviets and the Germans had been killing each other in their millions for years....we and the British hadn't.  We had a full strength army and an even better full strength airforce that would have obliterated everything we decided we wanted to.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> I will send you and Frank a good reading list on the Eastern Front and on Patton's Folly.
> 
> You simply do not understand the subject.







Sure thing Jake.  Your surrender is duly noted.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 18, 2014)

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...


He´s right. The Korea War showed that the Soviet tanks were superior to the American tanks. Not to mention the German tanks. In Addition to that the Soviets did not only have medium tanks but many heavy tanks: The KV and JS series.



> Sherman tanks were not nearly as efficient or as armored as the primary  German tank, the Panzer IV. This was a fact even before the upgrading of  Panzer gun barrels and armor in 1943. Shermans were under-gunned when  fighting German Tiger tanks and out-maneuvered when facing German  Panther tanks. These disparities are shown in an account of the famous  Lt. Colonel William B. Lovelady, commander of the 3rd Armored Division&#8217;s 2nd Battalion, retold by Lt. Colonel Haynes Dugan.
> 
> The faults of the Sherman were [...] balanced by the sheer number that  could be manufactured and the speed of this production. Regardless of  the reasons for the Sherman&#8217;s problems, individuals of the Third Armored  division dealt with them in their daily lives. The Sherman M4 medium  tank proved to be both a &#8220;death trap&#8221; for American soldiers and a poor  defense against German tanks. However, its use by almost all of the  Allied Forces was crucial to their ultimate success in WWII.
> 
> A Poor Defense: Sherman tanks in WW2 | University of Illinois Archives


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

Bleipriester said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...








I see you continue to ignore the M-26......

T-34-85 Vs M26 Pershing: Korea 1950 - Steven J. Zaloga - Google Books


----------



## Samson (Jun 18, 2014)

Bleipriester said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



^^^^

Your quote does not address the issue, as it does not mention Russian Tanks.

But thanks for trying to bail Jake out of his quagmire of ludicrous unsubstantiated opinions


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 18, 2014)

westwall said:


> I see you continue to ignore the M-26......
> 
> T-34-85 Vs M26 Pershing: Korea 1950 - Steven J. Zaloga - Google Books


It is not very expressive to compare a heavy with a medium tank. The M26 should be compared with JS tanks instead:


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 18, 2014)

Samson said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...


The quote states that the Sherman was not only a weak tank but also a threat to the crew. A tank that tends to flare up even without any enemy action is not predestinated to represent a superior tank force.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

bendog said:


> I guess those interviews with Brit and US tankers bemoaning the Shermans lack of firepower and tendency to "brew up" were urban legends.



Yup.   Just ask Westwall and Frank


----------



## Picaro (Jun 18, 2014)

bendog said:


> All true.  However, it's a curious quirk that both Hitler and Stalin were paranoid psychopaths.  Yet, Russia managed it's resources to produce relatively low tech T-34s and single engine attack/fighter aircraft, while Germany fritted away it's industrial advantage.
> 
> I wonder why the difference.



Access to resources, and having Allies with the means to ship you high quality machine tools and all kinds of other goodies while concentrating your production on other things is the difference. After the end of 1942 and early 1943, around May, the Germans had lost, and many of them knew it. The rest of the war Germany was on the defensive and the Allies were basically just mopping up. Losing many men in pointless offensives like Stalingrad and Kursk means you have to start stripping your country of men needed to operate factories, etc.



> The soviets even managed to grow their economy at a higher gdp than did the US in the early post-war.  We dismissed this as they were very good at producing steel and concrete and building dams, but when it came to innovation, we were better.  I'm not sure that's an adequate explanation.



That was impressive, but again it wasn't possible for them to do that entirely on their own, and the quality of their production wasn't very high. If it weren't for Allied aid, they would still been at the Vistula in 1945, and nowhere near Germany, even with the German defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk. They could never have launched offensives, much less large ones.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

westwall said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Quit dodging, Westwall.  The Soviet line of armor was better than the West and in much greater numbers.

M-26 Pershing: _In combat it was, unlike the M4 Sherman, fairly equal in firepower and protection to both the Tiger I and Panther tanks, but was underpowered and mechanically unreliable. This became even more evident in the Korean War, where the M26, while an overmatch for the T-34-85, had severe problems with the hilly terrain and was withdrawn in 1951_ M26 Pershing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

Samson said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Samson, you are blathering right along with Westwall.

Amusing.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 18, 2014)

The T-34 started out as a pos, then evolved into barely adequate, then to okay, then after field testing by U.S. and Brit engineers who then sent along their criticisms and suggested improvements became a very good tank in early 1944.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...







Better yes, but not in greater numbers.  And once again, the German armor was significantly better than ours and that didn't help them too much did it.  A Hawker Typhoon, launching a 60lb RP up their ass, tended to turn them inside out.

Guess what...that works on Soviet tanks too.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

Picaro said:


> The T-34 started out as a pos, then evolved into barely adequate, then to okay, then after field testing by U.S. and Brit engineers who then sent along their criticisms and suggested improvements became a very good tank in early 1944.








The T-34 was NEVER a POS.  The T-34/76 (which was a match for even the later marks of Panzer IV) was the best tank in the world when it made its debut.  A single one of them halted Army Group Center for nearly 8 hours in the battles before Smolensk.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...







Once again you insult instead of presenting facts.  Why is that Jake?
Remember the old adage, "best keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt."

Time to keep quiet Jake old boy....time to keep quiet...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> I will send you and Frank a good reading list on the Eastern Front and on Patton's Folly.
> 
> You simply do not understand the subject.


who wrote "Patton's Folly" Paul Krugman?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

westwall said:


> Once again you insult instead of presenting facts.  Why is that Jake?  Remember the old adage, "best keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt."  Time to keep quiet Jake old boy....time to keep quiet...



You kept giving unsubstantiated opinions and you want me to disprove them?

That is not how it works.

The Russians would have beaten the Germans, if they did not get the atom bomb, without American help.

Stalin wanted a Western Front in Europe to (1) ease the casualties on the Eastern front, (2) pressure the Germans from the West, and (3) keep the Allies out of Eastern Europe.

The Soviets took casualties that would have brought any western country to its knees.  World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia estimates that 1 of 4 Soviets died with a higher ratio of wounded and disposed.

Stalin and his countrymen never would have surrendered.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 18, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> The stupid press has been all aglow the last couple days over the 70th anniversay of D-day,  but many people think it was of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Da Comrade, GLORIOUS Soviet Union won war single handedly - running dog capitalist pigs did nothing..


ROFL

What a fucking moron you are.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

We talk about fools, and the Chief Fool appears.

No one suggests that the USSR won the war single handedly: only a fool would suggest that someone said that.

What was said was that the USSR, if the Germans did not develop the atom bomb, would have eventually won the war.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Once again you insult instead of presenting facts.  Why is that Jake?  Remember the old adage, "best keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt."  Time to keep quiet Jake old boy....time to keep quiet...
> ...









The Soviets would have at best fought the Germans to a standstill without US help.  Please explain to the class the importance to the Soviet armies of the 600,000 trucks we gave them.

Explain further to the class how you can win a war when your side is losing 6 for every one of the enemy?  This just deals with tanks (which you seem to be so in love with) but the infantry losses were even worse.  Like I said, dying for your country is all hunky dory, but you better have enough troops left over to continue fighting.  

The winter coupled with German arrogance as regards the amount of supply they would need, saved the Soviet Union.  Of that there is no doubt.  "General Winter" was as critical to the German defeat as it was to Napoleons, the century before.


The T-34 in WWII: the Legend vs. the Performance - WAR HISTORY ONLINE


----------



## Picaro (Jun 18, 2014)

westwall said:


> The T-34 was NEVER a POS.



Actually it was, which was why its first incarnations were rejected by the U.S. Army for purchase in the early or mid-1930's. 



> The T-34/76 (which was a match for even the later marks of Panzer IV) was the best tank in the world when it made its debut.  A single one of them halted Army Group Center for nearly 8 hours in the battles before Smolensk.


They got the crap shot out of them for the first few years of the war. It got better as the war went on, but it didn't reach its 'best tank in the world' legend until early 1944, when the new improved models began rolling off the production lines.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 18, 2014)

The soviets had Germany beat cold, but we shortened the war by a year with our invasion of Europe. The Soviets wanted, and needed our help to take the pressure off them, but the real purpose of the invasion was to keep the Soviets from becoming the masters of Western Europe. Churchill, especially, was thinking about post-war Europe as early as 1942, when he started arguing for an invasion of Southern Europe, to keep the Soviets from the oil fields, the Suez Canal, India, and the Mediterranean, which was, for all practical purposes, a British controlled lake.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

> And once again, the German armor was significantly better than ours and *that didn't help them too much did it.*.



And there were many more Russian aircraft fully capable taking out German armor.

Thank you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

"The Soviets would have at best fought the Germans to a standstill without US help."

You are weakening; don't do that.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 18, 2014)

our tanks were totally obsolete, but we had thousands of them, and the German's could not match our production. We quickly learned not to engage German tanks with our tanks, if possible. Instead, we called up Tank Destroyers to knock them out. They were very good at that.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 18, 2014)

A bit of history for those who might not know:

Kama tank school - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 18, 2014)

_I do think the Soviet Union could have prevented the German Army from conquering it without any help. Virtually all of Germany's resources were concentrated against it in 1941-2 and the Western Allies had not gotten heavily involved, yet they badly outproduced Germany and blunted their offensive potential. My question is more whether or not there would have been a stalement or a German defeat from 1943 onwards without the Western Allies, particularly in view of the German armaments boom._ Axis History Forum ? Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

Interesting.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 18, 2014)

the Soviet air force relied on Allied shipments of octane booster and av fuel for a majority of its supplies for its high performance aircraft, 59% according to some accounts. 

Lend-Lease as a Function of the Soviet War Economy


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> > And once again, the German armor was significantly better than ours and *that didn't help them too much did it.*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








36,000 Sturmoviks didn't make too much of a dent to be honest.  They were very effective at Kursk, but other than that they were easy prey for the experten.  Hartmann alone I believe shot down over 80 of them.

Speaking of Kursk, you never did tell us who the Lucy group were.  You ever going to get around to that?


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> _I do think the Soviet Union could have prevented the German Army from conquering it without any help. Virtually all of Germany's resources were concentrated against it in 1941-2 and the Western Allies had not gotten heavily involved, yet they badly outproduced Germany and blunted their offensive potential. My question is more whether or not there would have been a stalement or a German defeat from 1943 onwards without the Western Allies, particularly in view of the German armaments boom._ Axis History Forum ? Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?
> 
> Interesting.








Indeed.  The consensus seems to be stalemate.  How unsurprising....


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 19, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> We talk about fools, and the Chief Fool appears.
> 
> No one suggests that the USSR won the war single handedly: only a fool would suggest that someone said that.
> 
> What was said was that the USSR, if the Germans did not develop the atom bomb, would have eventually won the war.


If we assume that the Germans would have had only one frontier, that one in the east, Germany would probably have won the war. In the last stage of the war, German troops fought in Italy, in France, on the Balkans and in the east.
Concentrated all that forces in the east, they probably would have thrown the Red Army back behind the Ural. But this is hypothetical, the things would already have taken another direction earlier in the war. 
But the Allied involvement didn´t only consist of attacks on the ground but largely of air attacks on Germany´s infrastructure. If we delete also these attacks from history, a German victory would have been even more likely.

The Soviet march towards Berlin in 1945 was not a stroll. Alone in the first two months of 1945, the Red Army lost 8500 tanks, thereof 4600 in February. If the Germans would not have suffered permanent ammunition and fuel shortages, Soviet troops were unable to beat the Germans, no matter who invaded from other sides. It was very close anyway, the Germans even figured on a turnaround at this time as the Soviet casualties were extremely high.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 19, 2014)

A nice essay on the importance of oil in Hitler's plans and the war in general.

The Quest for Fuel in WWII

A few excerpts:



> [FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]Between 1933 and 1939, German domestic      crude oil production nearly tripled to 4.5 million barrels per year. As was      true of most countries in western      Europe, Germany was rich in coal, but poor in petroleum. Under Hitler's      orders, German engineers began working to produce synthetic fuels, mostly      from coal and lignite, at an unprecedented pace. By 1941, synthetic fuel      production had reached a level of 31 million barrels per year. Austerity      programs were instituted long before the beginning of the war, and fuel      bought from the Soviet Union and Romania was stockpiled against future      needs.
> 
> 
> Despite all those measures, though,      there simply was not enough oil available in Europe to satisfy the huge      requirements of a mechanized force in the service of a country with      expansionist aims. A panzer division typically consumed 1,000 gallons      (approx. 30 barrels) of fuel per mile traveled. Thus, despite the Draconian      measures practiced by the _Wehrmacht_, it      quickly became clear that optimum German tactics would have to be modified      to operate within the limits of available resources. That, as much as any      other practical or theoretical factors, led to the conception and practice      of the _Blitzkrieg_.
> ...


...



> [FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]Meanwhile, oil also helped decide the      Battle of Britain. The Royal Air Force, with access to America's oil, was      able to utilize 100-octane aviation gasoline n its Spitfires and Hurricanes.      That improved engine performance, allowing faster takeoffs, quicker bursts      of speed, and larger payloads.
> 
> The Germans had to choose quantity over      quality. Since producing the higher octane aviation gas would necessarily      have meant lower output, the _Luftwaffe_ command had 87-octane fuel      used in their planes. The resultant deficiencies were most keenly felt in      decreased "loiter time." With reduced engine performance, German aircraft      could only remain in British airspace for 15-20 minutes if they were to have      enough fuel to return to base. Considering how close a fight the Battle of      Britain turned out to be, any increased performance by the _Luftwaffe_      might well have proven critical to the battle's course.
> [/FONT]


...



> [FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]The Soviets had sent over 4.5 million      barrels of oil to Hitler before he sent his armies east in Operation      Barbarossa. *The Soviet Union was at the time the world's second largest oil      producer. Despite strict rationing, however, it still had to import oil from      the United States to meet its own needs.* It was with a view to securing more      oil supplies for himself that Stalin forced Hitler's acquiescence to his      territorial demands in Romania. That was an ill-considered move, however, in      that it certainly doomed the Soviet Union to German attack.
> 
> 
> Most of Hitler's crude oil came from the      Romanian fields at Ploesti, and Stalin's border land grab on that nation      thus put the Red Army uncomfortably close to critical German supply lines.      It was at that point Hitler irreversibly committed his nation to an      invasion.
> [/FONT]


...

Key turning point:



> *[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]By the early fall, Maikop was in German      hands, and by December oil was once again flowing from it, despite vigorous      efforts by Soviet partisans and saboteurs. But Army Group A never reached      Grozny or Baku. Hitler lost sight of his material goal and instead fastened      on one of only symbolic importance - Stalingrad. He transferred eight      divisions from Army Group A to B, and with its drive thus weakened, A was      unable to break into the mountains. Neither could it resist the Soviet      counterattack when it came, and Maikop had to be given up on 18 January      1943.*
> 
> 
> *A campaign that was supposed to have      lasted only weeks had stretched into months, then years. Fully half of      Germany's oil reserves were poured into the eastern front. At the start of      the 1942 drive, Hitler said, "If I do not get the oil of Maikop and Grozny,      then I must end the war." He should have taken his own advice.*
> [/FONT]


...



> For example, production of aviation gasoline had been reduced by 95 percent,      which created yet another oil paradox. Without fuel, the fighters could not      fly to protect the oil facilities, which meant more destroyed refineries and      therefore less fuel. Rather than waste fuel taxiing, aircraft were towed to      runways by teams of cows and horses.
> 
> 
> Speer saw the inevitable end when he      encountered a column of 150 trucks of the German 10th Army, each of which      had four oxen hitched to it. Even many of the vaunted V-1 and V-2 rockets      had to be hauled to their launching sites by horse-drawn wagons.
> ...




Somebody asked what 'reconstituting a German division' would entail.


Simple: refueling it.






> The primacy of oil was never better      demonstrated that during the final battle for Berlin. During that bitter      fight,* literally thousands of German tanks, planes and guns sat idle in      nearby warehouses for lack of fuel and lubricants needs to operate them.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 19, 2014)

Albert Speer said that they also had a critical shortage of ball bearings that almost ended the war early


----------



## Samson (Jun 19, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Somebody asked what 'reconstituting a German division' would entail.
> 
> Simple: refueling it.
> 
> ...



Wow that is simple!

Now that you've enlightened me, I realize that although I need to work, my car is in the garage AND IT IS COMPLETELY FILLED WITH FUEL!!

I think I'll send it to go to the grocery store, and to pick up some laundry.

Thanks!


----------



## Discombobulated (Jun 19, 2014)

Once again, the premise of this thread has no historical or factual basis of any kind.   It is nothing more than fantasy speculation based on ignorance.  Absolutely nothing there to support this incredibly ill considered fiction.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 19, 2014)

Discombobulated said:


> Once again, the premise of this thread has no historical or factual basis of any kind.   It is nothing more than fantasy speculation based on ignorance.  Absolutely nothing there to support this incredibly ill considered fiction.



The hijacking  of the thread's original premise is going very well, though, don't you think?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 19, 2014)

Discombobulated said:


> Once again, the premise of this thread has no historical or factual basis of any kind.   It is nothing more than fantasy speculation based on ignorance.  Absolutely nothing there to support this incredibly ill considered fiction.



It's a shootshitters thread, duh!


----------



## Camp (Jun 19, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, the premise of this thread has no historical or factual basis of any kind.   It is nothing more than fantasy speculation based on ignorance.  Absolutely nothing there to support this incredibly ill considered fiction.
> ...



Blame it on the FDR, Marshall, Eisenhower were commie's and led by Uncle Joe stuff that has permeated this site. The effort seems to have recruited some fellow conspiracy theorist buffs.


----------



## Discombobulated (Jun 19, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, the premise of this thread has no historical or factual basis of any kind.   It is nothing more than fantasy speculation based on ignorance.  Absolutely nothing there to support this incredibly ill considered fiction.
> ...



The entire premise is utter and complete nonsense.  End of story.


----------



## Samson (Jun 19, 2014)

Discombobulated said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Discombobulated said:
> ...



Science Fiction: The point is to entertain.

Robert Silverberg wrote a book about the earth, 500 years after Columbus did NOT discover America (he and many more Eropeans were killed off in a prolonged Black Plague). Wish I could recall the title.


----------



## Discombobulated (Jun 19, 2014)

Samson said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



No you're wrong about that.  The intention of the premise is to mischaracterize history.


----------



## Camp (Jun 19, 2014)

Samson said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Gate of Worlds


----------



## Samson (Jun 19, 2014)

Discombobulated said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Discombobulated said:
> ...



Did you read the book?

Were you confused by the fact that America was discovered, and the fiction that it was not?

Does the fact that we did not fight Russia after WWII and the fiction that we did make your head explode?


----------



## Discombobulated (Jun 19, 2014)

Samson said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Perhaps you've simply neglected to read the link in the OP.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 19, 2014)

Discombobulated said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Discombobulated said:
> ...



The need to nullify American Exceptionalism is strong among the left. Recent attempts to inflate the Soviet contribution and minimize the American contribution is simply a manifestation of this.

Fact: Without American help, Stalin's army would have been throwing rocks at the Nazis.


----------



## westwall (Jun 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Albert Speer said that they also had a critical shortage of ball bearings that almost ended the war early









The beginning of the end for the Third Reich was when the Allies finally began the attacks on the POL facilities.  The leadership of Germany sure understood what it meant.


HyperWar: Army Air Forces in World War II Volume III: Europe: ARGUMENT to V-E Day, January 1944 to May 1945 Chapter 18


----------



## Picaro (Jun 19, 2014)

Discombobulated said:


> The entire premise is utter and complete nonsense.  End of story.



I'm pretty sure most people agreed.

I would send OP's like this one to the conspiracy theory forums, but moderation here is looser than what mine would be for a History Forum.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 19, 2014)

Samson said:


> Wow that is simple!
> 
> Now that you've enlightened me, I realize that although I need to work, my car is in the garage AND IT IS COMPLETELY FILLED WITH FUEL!!
> 
> ...



You're welcome! And get that thing fixed before you invade the Soviet Union; it'll help a lot.


----------



## gam (Jun 21, 2014)

I had a look at his website.  The guy is way out there with some of his ideas.  Scary to think this guy held a high government position at one stage.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 21, 2014)

Yeah, the communist Russians also originally aligned themselves with the NAZIs, their soul mates. Barbarossa  must have gave Stalin a hiccup or two.  Russia had it's proverbial  butt kicked by their homeboys. In their  desperation and their consternation, they resorted to lining up machineguns against their own in  do or die suicide attacks. Who else did this ? The Russians made their proverbial bed, I am not sure it was so admirable. Not seeing what is so good about the Russians, are YOU?


----------



## MaryL (Jul 3, 2014)

The Russians WON the war? Stalin was a pal of Hitler and thought they had a green light to invade eastern Europe. It's so ignorant to post the RUSSIANS WON this or that anything, hell, THEY  inspired Hitler. Put that in you pipe and smoke it. IF those bastards had actually STOOD against the NAZIS to begin with, No operation Barbarossa, no battle of Stalingrad, no Kursk, nada, and pushed the "facists' back to begin with, things might have been a little rosier for us of us.


----------



## eagle7_31 (Jul 20, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> The stupid press has been all aglow the last couple days over the 70th anniversay of D-day,  but many people think it was of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes and no. Russia would not have been able to produce the armaments to supply their forces without the United States assistance. Also Hitler's stand your ground tactics enable the Red Army to advance after Stalingrad, you also forget the Battle of Kursck in the summer of 43, that is what finally did the German army in. Even then had the Germans cut their defensive lines by just 1/3 they could have halted the red army before it got to Europe.


----------

