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

[JakeStarkey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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.

‘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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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