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

[westwall]

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

The howlers issuing from these occasions are enough to split your sides. Obama and his lap dog Cameron described the Normandy landing on June 6, 1944, as “the greatest liberation force that the world has ever known” and took all the credit for the US and Britain for the defeat of Hitler. No mention was made of the Soviet Union and the Red Army, which for three years prior to the Normandy landing had been fighting and defeating the Wehrmacht.

The Germans lost World War II at the Battle of Stalingrad, which was fought from August 23, 1942 until February 2, 1943, when most of the remnants of the powerful German Sixth Army surrendered, including 22 generals.

Nineteen months previously the largest invasion force ever assembled on planet earth invaded Russia across a one thousand mile front. Three million crack German troops; 7,500 artillery units, 19 panzer divisions with 3,000 tanks, and 2,500 aircraft rolled across Russia for 14 months.

By June 1944, three years later, very little of this force was left. The Red Army had chewed it up. When the so-called “allies” (a term which apparently excludes Russia) landed in France, there was little to resist them. The best forces remaining to Hitler were on the Russian front, which collapsed day by day as the Red Army approached Berlin.

The Red Army won the war with Germany. The Americans and the British showed up after the Wehrmacht was exhausted and in tatters and could offer little resistance. Joseph Stalin believed that Washington and London stayed out of the war until the last minute and left Russia with the burden of defeating Germany.

Hollywood and popular writers have, of course, buried the facts. Americans have all sorts of movies, such as “A Bridge Too Far,” that portray insignificant events, however heroic, as turning points in the war. Nevertheless, the facts are clear. The war was won on the Eastern front by Russia. Hollywood’s movies are fun, but they are nonsense.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[daveman]

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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...

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

LOL. Stop DIGGING.

 

[bendog]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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