What If Germany As Won In Russia?

[jimbotosome]

First of all Jimbo, I will gladly apologise if my remarks to your post were taken out of context.

I never took you that way. I think people often mistake me for saying something that seems like I am offended but I "rarely" get my feelings hurt. I am an American and as you know we have a propensity to cut to the chase and I think we tend to violate the directness protocols of a lot of cultures that gives the impression we are hostile or upset. You have no need to apologize for anything buddy, but thanks for being considerate anyway.

Now having said that, first of all its tank o PHILE and no I’m not that and I’d gladly ask you to bring proof of how you came to that conclusion based on my previous post. At no point do I make reference of the Tank as a weapon of complete significance, indeed I don’t make reference to panzers in my post. As you say “don’t start putting keypresses on my keyboard”

Tank-o-phile, you are right, my bad. I don’t speak English very well, as I said, I am an American.

Now, my rationale for saying you “sound” like a tank-o-phile was the recognizing what appears to be the quintessential visceral awe that tank-o-philes have when they speak of the eastern front. It reminds me of the line in the Wizard of Oz that goes “Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my! Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!”. Sometimes tank-o-philes they take off their hats and put them over their heart when they speak. I understand that there were many people killed on the eastern front but then again there were a lot of British killed at Somme in WWI in a decision that made absolutely no sense what so ever. Maybe Geoff can explain that one sometime, it leaves me scratching my head. WWI taught the Allies that something needs to be done to get superiority rather than just getting into a static front and fighting to a perpetual stalemate. For the Allies, they looked to the skies and the Axis looked to the tank.

Seems like a day doesn’t go by sometimes when you don’t hear about how many Shermans it takes to take out a Tiger or hear how a T-34-85 is a match for a Tiger. When the talk about the eastern front going at it and how bad things were compared to the western front, I want to barf. To the German soldier that was on the western front, the enemy was far more fearsome than the eastern front. On the eastern front it was starvation to fear, not enemy tactics. Germany’s lack of preparedness and bad timing for the offensive on Russia was why they failed to finish annihilating an extremely poor enemy of the Soviet Union. The winter stopped the German advance. The devastation of the non-Russian allies was what allowed Russia to mount a counter-offensive. The Russians never marauded the German’s supply line so in theory the could have never stopped them just as they didn’t before the record cold winter set in. It was the Allies that mauled their supplies by bombing their industry back into the Stone Age and fed Russia, every kind of war aid you can imagine from food to tanks to yes, "fighter/bombers". That’s what stopped the Tigers, that’s what stopped the Stukas, that’s what stopped the Blitzkrieg of Russia. NOTHING else. Russia’s strategy was to run scads of tanks at the Tigers and hopefully one or two would get destroyed just from the numbers. If Germany’s tank industry had been sustained, then they would have been able to eventually exceed Russia’s production of "cannon fodder" tanks with their own and then completely stop Russia’s production of everything. Russia chased a starving unsupplied and unprotected army back to Germany. The reason was the western front was annihilating the Luftwaffe, the production industries, the fuel industry, the supply truck industry. Too me, the eastern front was pointless, not awesome. Germany was producing fighters. They were not being sent to the eastern front. Fighters did them no good their. In fact, they often couldn't even start them in cold weather. No, make no mistake, the German fighter production was being sent to the western front to try to stop the debilitating bombing going on by Allied air. This is why the Luftwaffe could not build up in either theater. The ME-262s were used in the Western front because they knew it was the key to beating anyone including Russia. It isn't that the eastern front is disregarded as much as it is the western front is misunderstood because the losses are counted in terms of men and equipment that are destroyed on the battlefield rather than men and equipment that are destroyed period. Why is this not obvious? This is why I say tanks do nothing to stop massive production of opposing tanks or the front. It is all air power. All of it. Without supply, no equipment can survive or advance.

Win/Lose = Supply

Supply = Air Power

therfore applying the "Transitive Property of Equality" we get:

Win/Lose = air power.

I make no reference to one particular branch of an armed service because I truthfully believe that no one arm was capable of winning the war on its own. You seem to be of the opinion that air power is all you need and although I don’t disagree that Air Power is important and indeed is invaluable for any war to be won, it’s not the only way to win it. I am not an advocate of Walter Weaver or Marshal Douhet

Well, I have stated often when I state this position of mine that you have to have boots on the ground. This means you need an occupying force to consolidate gains, not to produce them. It is air power alone that determines who has a gain. On the ground you are at the mercy of the sky.

Now lets see what you wrote about “Whats a Tank?”

Pretty sweeping statement isn’t it??? Tank was of no consequence. That’s like me saying that the Air Force is only as good as the weather its allowed to operate in. you get bad days of weather, the planes don’t fly. Take all the B-29’s, P-47’s, Mustangs you want. If it isn’t good weather they don’t fly!!!!!!

Agreed that weather does limit the ability to conduct operations in the air. But it does more so with armor. Take a look at the mud bath the Tigers died in during the spring thaws. I only need a few hundred feet below a cloud to operate in a plane. Also the devastation from the air buys you plenty of time while the enemy is licking his wounds from the clear days where you devastated him.

That statement above is hogwash, but so is your assertion that the Tank was of no consequence. It didn’t win the war on its own, but neither did airpower. Nor did seapower. THEY ALL COMBINED TO DO IT.

Again, you are making straw man arguments. I never said you don’t need basic services. Shoes are very important in winning a war but a specific shoe is of no consequence. Same thing with a tank. This should be very clear by the fact we were using “Ronson” lighters to chase the Germans back to Germany while the Russians with the best tanks and most quantity of tanks in the war had a virtual stalemate slugging it out with Germany on the eastern front even though the Germans were being systematically stripped of their supplies and equipment by the bombing in the west.

I don’t appreciate your judgement of the Russians as Human Disregarding Idiots. I abhorred Communism and all it stood for but the Russians lost too many men to be denied respect. Just remember that the war in the East was a battle of annihilation never at any time did the US or Allies face numbers of Germans like the Russians did. Oh yeah, if you really think they were idiots well your country spent 50 years telling the rest of the world how dangerous they were. So who were the bigger idiots??? And as for your assertion about them being “human disregarding” well I’ve 2 Battles that you should look back upon before being so arrogant : Gettysburg and Bull Run. You may think I’m being inflammatory but I find that your attitude towards Russia and its achievements appalling. I often wonder if the US or the British would have had the stomach to endure a siege like Leningrad or a war of annihilation like Stalingrad. And while we go on about the slaughter of Falaise, remember that the Russians completed an even more remarkable operation called “Bagration” which destroyed an entire Army Group and forever destroyed the germans hopes for settlement in the East.

Woah! Hold the phone there. The Human Disregarding Idiots I was referring to were the ones that called for the Human Waves, not the poor saps forced to charge a tank with a cheesmo rifle in a human wave. These sicko lifeless dogs would shoot the soldiers that fled a hopeless situation in front only to find their own commissars shooting at them from behind. Stalin was proud of this. This is about as scumbag as humans get. The Russians as a military were a sorry bunch. There is no way to adore the strategies and tactics of the worst army in WWII. The soldiers may have been brave, but then again they may not have been, its not like they had a choice to choose to be a hero or a coward, they were dead either way. I tend to think that if they were really brave or intelligent they would have turned that rifle and taken out the commissars so that they could have saved some of the brothers in arms and have escaped to a rational tactical position where they could figure out how to attack their enemy. The Russian soldier was simply cannon fodder. You know that. I don’t fault them from being in this lose-lose situation but I certainly don’t exalt them for it either.

I take your point about the German Tactical Air Power sucking and compared to the Allied side it was a non-entity. The US air Force and RAF were exceptional in this role and as the campaign in Normandy and your assertions prove. However lets just think for a moment that Russia was not invaded (you are making the point that Russia had no influence on the outcome of the war) in June 1941 the luftawffe had a grand total of 2598 of which 1939 were serviceable. The US wasn’t in the war and wouldn’t have been in it until Dec anyway. Do you think that any of these aircraft might have been diverted to North Africa??? I am not including the 1700 aircraft or so that were deployed elsewhere in this. I think another 3 or 400 aircraft might have changed things in North Africa, and remember that even with the max resources that the RAF could spare in 1941 and 1942, Rommel with only 4 German Divisions, came close to chasing the English out of North Africa. So much for airpower alone! With the additional logisitical support and increased land forces, Germany would have driven Britain out of Egypt. But I digress.

At the start of the US Air assault from Britian the Germans had not only the most experienced and veteran pilots, but tremendously superior numbers. The weaknesses in German Air Force doctrine was probably not illustrated any better than by the RAF in the BoB. The British use of a handful of aircraft, some ornery pilots, and radar completely crushed the Luftwaffe confidence.

Your comments about North Africa are also surpizing. You might ought to invest in the Rommel Papers if you don’t already have it. He seems to be in stark disagreement with you. Germany stalled in Egypt because their supplies were destroyed by a combination of the RAF, USAAF and the Royal Navy and their armor was being continuously decimated by aerial assaults by the strange new bombers called “Liberators”. When the Americans joined the fray (with new equipment and a pretty decent air force itself) then they party was over. This is when the Germans jammed those remaining massive tanks into reverse and ran full throttle, indirectly, back to Berlin with the only remaining victory coming from a small short victory at Kassarine Pass against some rookie American soldiers. It was Rommel that said that because of the air superiority that he told Hitler who admitted he was right that the war could no longer be won in 1943. Rommel was genius of a general. He was not under some illusion that it was the new Shermans that were going to dominate his new Tigers. It is not hard to understand reading the drive back across North Africa as the very reason the war was now going in the other direction.

I’m not going to go into which historians make the Tank an important weapon. And I do agree with you that tanks are sitting ducks to Tactical Air Power, but war is not a simple case of “Rock, Scissors, Stone”. Tanks are an important element of ground forces just as infantry, Artillery, Anti-Aircraft are. It is a combined force that stands the greatest chance of victory, yes even tanks have their place and they along with superb air support helped Blitzkrieg achieve such spectacular results.

Artillery is good, it has a big role but it also requires a stable front and it can only be used in certain circumstances. But then again, Germany had very good artillery in Normandy and they were simply not allowed to use it because each barrage could lead to the immediate destruction of the piece that fired it. Air power erased German artillery so that in all intents and purposes it simply did not exist as a useable weapon in the western front. Again, I feel I must iterate, a tank is good against unprotected infantry and any stray truck or light armor not destroyed by the advancing air strikes. But it does not make a difference what kind of tank you use. They were simply inconsequential. Moving SCADS of tanks from the eastern front would not have changed the race across France with the exception that it would have taken a bit longer to completely annihilate those additional tanks from the air supremacy.

You say that the British and Americans would not have been stopped crossing the Channel even with the addition of an extra 120 Divisions and 3 additional Luftflotte and I say you’re wrong. The Allies had 3 years of virtually no german interference to build up that invasion force and it took a long hard slog (as Sapper will testify) to break through the defences. I’m saying that those bombers would have faced a Luftwaffe that would also have had 3 years to re-equip itself and rest and prepare for it. Against a depleted Luftwaffe the 8th and 9th Air Forces lost a total of 49,000 men (source www.usaaf.net) and that was against an airforce that was primarily facing Russia and did not enjoy air superiority over France). You are basing your assumptions on the casualties suffered by the Luftwaffe during the “Big Week”. Because most of the decent pilots died in Russia those planes were manned by very few experienced pilots with little or no training. Its men against boys. Against a fully manned Luftwaffe that didn’t get involved in Russia the pilots would have been better trained and much more capable. Russia was a factor, Jimbo.

Russia was a factor only in the amount of time. This was the premise lain out in the first place. You seem to have forgotten the original argument. It was argued that the Allies could not have beaten Germany if Germany had not invaded Russia. The USAAF and the RAF could have STILL bombed the German armor out of existence. More sorties? Yes. More time? Yes. A different out come? Not a chance.

You might have a gripe about the lack of respect Air Power is awarded in WWII but I have a similar gripe and that is the disproportionate lack of significance that the Eastern Front is awarded when the History of WWII is studied. It galls me to see people talk about the importance of Alamein and D-Day and in the same breath IGNORE the goings on in Russia and the East. It riles me because it did have an effect and I will make no apologies for making this assertion. I am not belittling anything that happened in the West, indeed Russia would surely have fallen without the help of the West and Germany would surely have triumphed. It is when people succumb to generalisations like “human disregarding idiots”. If I have reading to do about Vietnam and Korea (which I have studied) then you Jimbo really need to start reading about the Eastern Front.

Well, again, you sort of seem to be in agreement with me but you also seemed to disagree by the straw man argument you made. I never said or implied all you need is air supremacy. I remember reading a reference by Gen Doolittle and his son who was an officer during WWII and they were together flying up to France in a transport plane when his boy looked out and saw a major traffic jam of Allied supply trucks, armor of all types etc in long columns that stretched for miles. He turned to his day and said,” no way you could get away with that if you didn’t own the sky”.

Now as to the Vietnam connection. I used that as an example of how even with total air superiority the US failed to defeat the VC and North Vietnamese. You have said that it was down to politics and politics alone. I refer you to an article in the airpower journal in Summer 1990 entitled “Using a sledgehammer to kill a Gnat, The Air Force's Failure to Comprehend Insurgent Doctrine during Operation Rolling Thunder.

Not sure where you are going with this. Rolling Thunder was a stupid idea that was a political strategy to bomb a trail that they could simply move to the sides of until the bombers were gone and move on. The VC moved at night. They slept during the day. LeMay thought the idea was moronic. He wanted to bomb military targets instead, dams fuel centers, aircraft assembly plants, etc but Johnson and McNamara were afraid it would escalate the war. The idea was to break their will by putting holes in the country side. Probably not the best use of air power, and certainly not the best example to use to make a point you think you have. The US was afraid to invade and crank up a full scale war in both Korea and Vietnam. The invasion of the Chinese into Korea could have been decimated by airpower as the Chinese had nothing but 270,000 foot soldiers but Mac was prevented from using his air power above the 38th parallel. Macarthur wanted to do this and/or a few other things to keep his troops from getting killed by the overwhelming numbers but Truman was missing a political backbone and many US soldiers died because of this cowardice. Mac was grossly critical of this cowardice in the press which led to his “being replaced” with Ridgeway by Truman and his “old soldiers never die” speech before congress. Air power can defeat anything accept politics. Politics when properly mixed with cowardice is even more powerful than a nuclear bomb.

Airpower doesn’t always work. The US airforces bombing of Laos to stop the movement along the Ho Chi Minh Trail is a case in point. At one stage Laos suffered 42000 bombing missions in one year 1970 and this was kept up. It became the most bombed nation in History. 2 Million Tons of Bombs fell on this country. Did it stop the VC, not at all!!!

Gotthard, I don’t want to sound insulting or condescending but the arguments you made make it hard for me to take you serious. If you are joking, no problem because I like to cut up myself. But the examples you gave have nothing to do with the efficacy of air power and the expression is “that dog won’t hunt”.

[Kiwiwriter]

(jimbotosome @ Dec 1 2005, 12:52 PM) [post=42358]Kiwi,

I didn't rate my impression of Bradley on the Patton movie. I am not that shallow. I have read one of his books and about to read another. I found him very reserved and humble which was extremely rare for a general on the Allied side (maybe he was the one and only). The US was forced to be "over-sensitive" to the British. Not only were the officers "officially" forbidden to criticize the British, but also the French and any other ally in WWII. It was a directive that was handed down during TORCH being promised if they did it, they would immediately be busted down to their permanent rank and shipped stateside. [/b]

In his second book, "A General's Life," Bradley is extremely hard on Patton and Montgomery. In addition, my reading on Bradley also comes from biographies of Patton, Ike, and Montgomery, including Carlo D'Este's superb books.

(jimbotosome @ Dec 1 2005, 12:52 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>They only thing I remember Bradley resenting about the British was the exaggerated favor that Ike gave them being afraid to appear "biased" toward his own countrymen like Monty was to his. Ike believed that it was better to offend his own as he had the ability to win back trust from them. For instance Bradley told Ike that Market Garden was far to risky to even be considered, but Ike agreed but gave in to Monty because he didn't want to "upset the apple cart" and said "besides, what if it does work?". [/b]

You're also leaving out the point that Ike was under pressure to use the airborne forces and to do something about the V-1 and V-2 bombardments of London, which were wrecking badly-strained British morale. However, I was not discussing Market-Garden.

(jimbotosome @ Dec 1 2005, 12:52 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, I know Malden's character in Patton is full of crap, so is Scott's. Bradley in his own writings had a terrific relationship with Patton and a lot of respect for him. Patton was very popular with other officers, peers and superior but everyone knew he had "foot-in-mouth" disease and always said, "that's just Georgie!".[/b]

As I said, Bradley is harsher on Patton in his second book, and his dislike of Patton comes out in the books on Patton I have read. They actually did not get on well, and Bradley seems to have disliked Patton for his flamboyance, harsh language, and the "slapping incident."

(jimbotosome @ Dec 1 2005, 12:52 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>But your comment on the "indecision" of the Falaise gap is a gross error. I would "hang fire" on continuing to spread that false rhetoric because Ike in his autobiography made it clear in "no uncertain terms" that the agreement with Monty was absolute and that the Americans would stop at the road to "Argentan" for fear of getting into each others sector, and hitting each other with their own artillery, so they agreed they would meet there at that marker (the road itself) and neither would encroach the other. Bradley had no choice whatsoever. Why people say otherwise is astonishing to me. This was agreed on before the operation and Monty said he could pull off his end of the deal no problem and even boasted about it. Bradley was "royally" pissed that he had to pull the plug on Patton as he knew it offered the Germans an exit from the pocket. Patton begged Ike to let him push on but Ike said Monty kept promising to get it closed. I believe I read where Monty even claimed responsibility saying he had underestimated the ability of the Canadians to achieve the Falaise objective. It’s a travesty to put that one on Bradley. That’s adding insult to injury. [/b]

That's also from D'Este and other books, including Robin Neillands and Denis Whitaker. A more important point about Falaise is that it is depicted today as a failure, but the toll the Germans paid in the pocket was immense.

(jimbotosome @ Dec 1 2005, 12:52 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>But you also seem to indicate his struggles with Monty were because he didn't like British. Actually had tremendous respect for Tedder and be believed he was one of the best Generals in the war. I don't find bigotry in Bradley at all. His disdain for Monty was not the same as a disdain for the British. He knew that Monty would try to do the same thing in Europe that did in Sicily and North Africa, which was to insist he be given "control" all armies and make sure his armies got there first. This is something no general would accept. Imagine if he had done the same thing to Monty. Do you think Monty would have been seen as "pro-American" in his responses to that? Since the Americans first entered WWII, Bradley saw Monty as wanting to "use" them and take all the glory to the British. This caused real problems in North Africa especially at the end where Monty wanted the US to be his troops "reserve" force in case they were needed at the victory front where the Germans were already "decimated". This is why Patton took off like a bandit in Sicily to get Palermo and then to Messina to make sure Monty didn't pull another stunt like that. It left a very bitter distrust of Monty in the mouths of Patton and Bradley. [/b]

I wasn't trying to glorify Montgomery or say he was right. Montgomery's faults were pretty huge and most of them were personal manners and methods of behavior that were guaranteed to infuriate his allies. The real problem in the Sicily campaign was not as much the rivalry between Monty and Patton but the fact that it was the first major Allied campaign involving two full-strength armies from the United States and the British Commonwealth. Neither force had any practical experience at working with each other at that level. In Tunisia, the two armies were British, and the American force was a corps. Badly led at first by Lloyd Fredendall and greener than Astroturf, the US 2nd Corps did badly in its first encounters with the Germans at Kasserine. The British were angered by the American disintegration at Kasserine after their brash pre-battle pronouncements, and the Americans were infuriated by the British condescending attitude after three years of retreats and defeats. This was not a model for inter-Allied cooperation in Sicily, and the campaign pretty much proved a training ground for future joint operations, which never went well.

As it happens, I'm working with Robin Neillands on this very subject, and the big problem was actually the two nations' competing philosophies of war and ground combat. The British saw it as a sport, the Americans as a grim all-out struggle. The British valued the art of their campaign and were desperate to avoid losing the few men they had left, the Americans saw their mass army as being civilians in uniform and that victory was achieved through the proper application of economic might and power. These divisions caused immense problems for the two nations in both World Wars.

Gordon Corrigan points out that as early as 1918, the Americans could not understand the flip British attitudes -- an American officer assigned as a liaison to a British unit wrote a report to his boss that the British unit he was with had poor morale and was likely to break. This was because the British CO had said the Germans were about to attack the area the British were holding, "and they were bloody welcome to it."

(jimbotosome @ Dec 1 2005, 12:52 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>That's not a bias, nor is it anti-British. It is an obligation to maintain fairness and justice for your men that were sacrificing their lives. You try to steal their glory and you commit a horrible offense to them. Everyone who served should get equal glory. Today we pretty much do that. Even a cook in WWII is admired as a hero today by people that know anything about WWII. [/b]

One of the most annoying things about war (as opposed to horrific) is that c*********t is not confined to lower-level officers, but flag rank. Often generals seem more concerned with their memoirs and postwar careers than in defeating the enemy. American Civil War generals' memoirs always save their harshest critiques for each other. If these generals hurled as much energy before the war against their opponents in battle instead of after the war against their colleagues in print, the war would have been won in a day. Rivalries, both personal and national, pettiness, personal anmiosities, jealousies, have been a staple of war since Alexander faced Greek mercenaries fighting for Darius across the field at Gaugemala. That is why so many generals who deserve to be remembered: Dempsey, Somervell, Montgomery Meigs, Quesada, Hodges, Simpson, Broadhurst, Chuikov, Yeremenko, Ramsay, McCreery, Rees, and Juin get forgotten. Generals with the ability to put themselves in the public eye (or are able to handle having it thrust upon them), get remembered.

This is why we have seen a change in the way history is taught and warriors are remembered...prior to World War I, war memorials often honored the generals who led the battles. Increasingly since the War to End All Wars, we have seen teaching and memorialization shift away from dress-uniformed figures on horseback making decisions and arrows on a map in favor of ordinary people struggling to cope with unimaginable horrors at the front and incredible shortages and bombing at home. I was taught in high school about panzer divisions driving across France. Important, but my daughter Wallis is learning about the experiences of children in the Holocaust and families in the Blitz. We also saw that the memorial tot he Korean War shifted from being a statue of MacArthur (the original plan) to a statuary group of a Marine patrol, and a wall depicting images of other US military personnel doing their jobs, many of them not in the front line. The experience of war is replacing the strategy of war. I prefer that to the "war between the generals," which is the title of David Irving's book, which assails the entire Allied high command, for his usual purpose, rehabilitating Hitler.

(jimbotosome @ Dec 1 2005, 12:52 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>Your comment on Bradley at the Battle of the Bulge is also a little startling. As far as not seeing it coming, not even Ike could be blamed for that. When the offensive had threatened to divide his corps, the offensive had all but completely stalled out. Ike insisted on putting two of his divisions under Monty to prevent them from being cut off from supply. Bradley didn’t want to do this firstly because the offensive had already failed and because he knew Monty would do something like resist giving them back as he had done after the invasion, or even worse, try to take credit for the Bulge victory causing a tremendous insult to the Americans that fought and died in it. But Ike insisted and so Bradley gave up command of those divisions to Monty. Monty, true to form, and making Bradley a prophet, took credit for “rescuing the Americans" from there "error at the Bulge” in a BBC interview. Both Ike and Bradley were incensed and Bradley threatened to resign if nothing was done about it. Ike tried to clarify Monty’s error but the British press wouldn’t hear of putting the fire out. Churchill seeing a virtual disaster on hand, stepped in with his famous speech to parliament, rebuking the British for taking credit for taking credit for what he claimed was a wholly American victory. [/b]

Nobody saw the Bulge was coming. But Bradley didn't make many moves to address the situation. He opposed Ike sending in the airborne divisions from the strategic reserve. As we know, those moves were vital. However, I wasn't defending Montgomery's idiotic press conference after the Bulge, which was probably his grossest personal act of what the British would call "caddishness" and the Americans bullying. I believe that press conference, more than his military work, is why Americans loathe and despise him. It's interesting that before he shoved his foot in his mouth, he paid great tribute to the qualities of the American soldier at that conference. Bradley was right to be furious over that press conference. And the problems the Americans had with the British media have little to do with the issue I'm addressing. I would point out that the British often had similar complaints about American media...they were very angry about American newspapers that reported that U.S. forces had raided Dieppe (all 50 of them), and American films that portrayed the Burma front as a war being won singlehandedly by American aviators and Errol Flynn. The "Forgotten Army" was also forgotten by its own allies.

However, the subject of press coverage of World War II is a Master's Thesis for another day.

[quote name='jimbotosome' date='Dec 1 2005, 12:52 PM' post='19613']I guess I just don't see Bradley the way you see him at all. In fact you might say were are opposite ends of the spectrum in our impressions of him.

[quote]

Not really. I just don't think he was flawless. I wrapped up my presentation on him by quoting Kenneth Macksey's tribute to Bradley. And it cannot be overstated that while he and his forces suffered setbacks, disappointments, and casualties, they were not defeated, and Bradley's forces drove through powerful German opposition from Normandy to the Elbeand into Czechoslovakia.

[jimbotosome]

(Kiwiwriter @ Dec 2 2005, 10:57 AM) [post=42456]In his second book, "A General's Life," Bradley is extremely hard on Patton and Montgomery. In addition, my reading on Bradley also comes from biographies of Patton, Ike, and Montgomery, including Carlo D'Este's superb books. [/b]

I will reserve judgment on that because I have that book and am about to read it.

(Kiwiwriter @ Dec 2 2005, 10:57 AM) [post=42456]You're also leaving out the point that Ike was under pressure to use the airborne forces and to do something about the V-1 and V-2 bombardments of London, which were wrecking badly-strained British morale. However, I was not discussing Market-Garden. [/b]

Neither was I discussing Market Garden. I was using it as an illustration that Ike had favored the Brits which put Bradley in constant binds.

(Kiwiwriter @ Dec 2 2005, 10:57 AM) [post=42456]That's also from D'Este and other books, including Robin Neillands and Denis Whitaker. A more important point about Falaise is that it is depicted today as a failure, but the toll the Germans paid in the pocket was immense. [/b]

Bradley claimed it was negligible because all that escaped were non-essentials. But the Falaise incident is commonly blamed on Bradley who bore no guilt in it. It was not at his option to break his word and move his troops into the British/Canadian sector and potentially get his men killed by allied artillery or get his allies killed by his artillery. Bradley didn’t see the Falaise pocket as a failure.

(Kiwiwriter @ Dec 2 2005, 10:57 AM) [post=42456]I wasn't trying to glorify Montgomery or say he was right. Montgomery's faults were pretty huge and most of them were personal manners and methods of behavior that were guaranteed to infuriate his allies. The real problem in the Sicily campaign was not as much the rivalry between Monty and Patton but the fact that it was the first major Allied campaign involving two full-strength armies from the United States and the British Commonwealth. Neither force had any practical experience at working with each other at that level. In Tunisia, the two armies were British, and the American force was a corps. Badly led at first by Lloyd Fredendall and greener than Astroturf, the US 2nd Corps did badly in its first encounters with the Germans at Kasserine. The British were angered by the American disintegration at Kasserine after their brash pre-battle pronouncements, and the Americans were infuriated by the British condescending attitude after three years of retreats and defeats. This was not a model for inter-Allied cooperation in Sicily, and the campaign pretty much proved a training ground for future joint operations, which never went well.
[/b]

I was addressing your statement that Bradley disliked the British, I don’t find that to have merit. When Patton took over US 2nd, he found them in a disastrous state. In his diary and letters to his wife he was appalled that Fredendall would let his troops get into such a state of low discipline. He said if you can’t have discipline in small things you can’t expect it in battle.

(Kiwiwriter @ Dec 2 2005, 10:57 AM) [post=42456]As it happens, I'm working with Robin Neillands on this very subject, and the big problem was actually the two nations' competing philosophies of war and ground combat. The British saw it as a sport, the Americans as a grim all-out struggle. The British valued the art of their campaign and were desperate to avoid losing the few men they had left, the Americans saw their mass army as being civilians in uniform and that victory was achieved through the proper application of economic might and power. These divisions caused immense problems for the two nations in both World Wars. [/b]

The statement you made here is something that I too had concluded all along. Not only that, but it is very profound and I am glad someone is addressing that. I have always thought that Monty’s “over-conservatism” was because he was limited in his resources. I never thought he was timid as many historians painted him. Monty viewed the battle as chess, Patton viewed it as football. I likewise believed Patton’s “over-aggressiveness” was an option to him by the fact he never had to concern himself with resources. This enabled them to fight two different types of battles. Ike said he believed in Monty and Patton he had the best of both worlds. But I am glad you said that because I have seen a lot of sniping by each side (Monty fans and Patton fans). Their contrasting styles would indeed cause conflicts and resentments. I think you have nailed that one right on the head.

(Kiwiwriter @ Dec 2 2005, 10:57 AM) [post=42456]One of the most annoying things about war (as opposed to horrific) is that c*********t is not confined to lower-level officers, but flag rank. Often generals seem more concerned with their memoirs and postwar careers than in defeating the enemy. American Civil War generals' memoirs always save their harshest critiques for each other. If these generals hurled as much energy before the war against their opponents in battle instead of after the war against their colleagues in print, the war would have been won in a day. Rivalries, both personal and national, pettiness, personal anmiosities, jealousies, have been a staple of war since Alexander faced Greek mercenaries fighting for Darius across the field at Gaugemala. That is why so many generals who deserve to be remembered: Dempsey, Somervell, Montgomery Meigs, Quesada, Hodges, Simpson, Broadhurst, Chuikov, Yeremenko, Ramsay, McCreery, Rees, and Juin get forgotten. Generals with the ability to put themselves in the public eye (or are able to handle having it thrust upon them), get remembered. [/b]

Perhaps it is merely the nature of the beast. Good generals are usually aggressive and aggressive people do not have “charming” personalities. When you make decisions that can cost men their lives, you are going to be paranoid. The mistakes you made are sometimes beyond your control but you will still have guilt in them. False bravado and self-aggrandizing are probably defense mechanisms to mitigate this guilt. Aggressive people tend to be highly competitive. The news media can certainly turn the whole affair into a circus as they did with Patton (in the US) and Monty (in Britain).

Egos exist on all levels. It is just that the ones propagated are the ones on the “big guys”. I think most military men will tell you that Lts are competitive with other Lts, Captains with Captains, Colonels with Colonels. I think it might be a little narrow to somehow believe it is a characteristic of generals simply because it is visible to posterity in that group. Better said it tends to be common to all men but more visible with generals.

(Kiwiwriter @ Dec 2 2005, 10:57 AM) [post=42456]Nobody saw the Bulge was coming. But Bradley didn't make many moves to address the situation. He opposed Ike sending in the airborne divisions from the strategic reserve. As we know, those moves were vital. However, I wasn't defending Montgomery's idiotic press conference after the Bulge, which was probably his grossest personal act of what the British would call "caddishness" and the Americans bullying. I believe that press conference, more than his military work, is why Americans loathe and despise him. It's interesting that before he shoved his foot in his mouth, he paid great tribute to the qualities of the American soldier at that conference. Bradley was right to be furious over that press conference. And the problems the Americans had with the British media have little to do with the issue I'm addressing. I would point out that the British often had similar complaints about American media...they were very angry about American newspapers that reported that U.S. forces had raided Dieppe (all 50 of them), and American films that portrayed the Burma front as a war being won singlehandedly by American aviators and Errol Flynn. The "Forgotten Army" was also forgotten by its own allies.[/b]

Perhaps you are right about the statements after the Bulge being the most polarizing. You can see the reason that his statements would have hit so hard since the Americans were sucker-punched by the Germans, lost many men and were so surprised that it was an embarrassment. That would certainly be adding insult to injury. But when I read about it, I really think you have to give the Germans credit for the surprise. Even though it bought them nothing and cost them too much, it did hurt the Americans in loses and pride. But from what I have read by Ike, there was simply no way to distinguish build ups with information coming in from many different areas all up and down the 200+ mile huge front he had. The assembly during the poor weather was a good calculation by the Germans this prevented air reconnaissance that would have had all of the armor destroyed in the assembly area. The idea that the beaten up Germans would attack through the Ardennes which is not tank country was so absurd that they moved the inexperienced and battle weary troops in that area for protection. It just so happened that Hitler being a crazy man believed that “destiny” would intervene so all he wanted was surprise, not strategic sanity. The Ardennes was suicide even to the huge army he had left.

(Kiwiwriter @ Dec 2 2005, 10:57 AM) [post=42456]Not really. I just don't think he was flawless. I wrapped up my presentation on him by quoting Kenneth Macksey's tribute to Bradley. And it cannot be overstated that while he and his forces suffered setbacks, disappointments, and casualties, they were not defeated, and Bradley's forces drove through powerful German opposition from Normandy to the Elbeand into Czechoslovakia.
[/b]

I don’t know of many people (serious people that is) that espouse that anyone is flawless or perfect, or even close. When I read about him both by him and by those that really knew him, I find they are usually harmonious in their evaluation of each other and it is the historians that have painted the picture that most people believe. I like letters and diary quotations more because I think there is much less fluff and more honesty and candor of thought. Historians on the other hand tend to blur the line between what is fact and what is opinion. I don't think it is a conspiracy to mislead, but it is rather the nature of their beast to lose the ability to distinguish between facts and their own opinion. Their view of their own opinion is so high it tends to cause the facts and that opinion to be synonymous.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

First of all I am not joking in the slightest and I am disappointed that you feel that I am not serious. I dont take offense however I am widely read on these subjects and have no problem ,given time backing up my assertions.

HOWEVER if you are going to assume that my arguments cannot be taken seriously please note that you have made the point that the Russian Winter and Allied Bombing stopped the German Tigers, Stukas and the Blitzkrieg. Ok, first of all the Tiger was not introduced until August 1942 and was developed as a result of engagements with T-34's and KV-1's the previous year. Blitzkrieg as a form of war by the Germans finished before the Tiger came about. As for Allied Bombing stopping the Blitzkrieg, please note the start of the Allied Bombing Offensive and the finish of Blitzkrieg. You'll see a difference in Dates. Your information is not accurate on this subject and if you feel that I can't make arguments well how do you think I feel when your facts like that are wrong??

You also state that the Russians never marauded the Germans supply lines. I'm assuming you mean by air. No they didnt launch any strategic offensive bombing of German Cities. However they did have Partisans. Before you laugh this off, please note that there were up to 142,000 partisans operating from as far north as Lake Ladoga and as far south as the Crimea. Thats a significant amount of men that the germans had to fight behind their lines. Figures released after the war state that the Partisans had destroyed 3,263 Bridges, 1,191 Tanks. 4000 lorries and up to 100,000 Germans. Now thats a sizable haul by any standards. As for Tactical Air Power well the Russians had a very powerful air force by the wars end. The IL-2 Sturmovik, one of the most successful attack aircraft ever, had a total of 36,000 aircraft produced making it one of the most produced aircraft in history. Incidentally it was used as a reference when the USAF designed the A-10 in the 1970's!!!!

You make the point that it was the Allies and only the Allies bombing the Germans back to the Stone age and equipping the Russians that won the war in the East. Please look at production figures for the German Armaments industry up until 1944 and then please revise your statement.
And you have said that Allied supplies made sure that Russia defeated Germany. Show me the figures that prove this. Put the number of aircraft delivered, tanks delivered up against Russian production figures and then come back to this point.

Russia's strategy was not to run scads of tanks at the Tigers and by the way, if you truly knew anything about the Panzerwaffe, you'd know that the Mark IV was the main Battle Tank of the war, not the Tiger. The Tiger production was 1,355 as opposed to 8,200 Mark IV's and 6,500 Mark V Panther. If your posts are to be believed then the Tiger is the only Tank the Germans produced. The Russians learnt the hard way during the early years of the war but by the end of the war they were truly experts in the Air and on land, being able to launch large scale offensives and co-ordinate them as shown in Operation Bagration.

You seem to quote Rommel quite a bit. Whilst he never fought on the Eastern Front (Even though Guderian recommended to Hitler appointing him to an eastern command after the Fall of North Africa), His subordinates notably Oberst Von Mellenthin and Oberst Von Luck did and were impressed by the Russian Army. In particular Von Mellenthin was quite complimetary about the Russians ability to Defend and their ability in exploiting bridgeheads. And this from an Acolyte of Rommels!

In case you are wondering why I have posted this, I am telling you that when it comes to Russia, you have quoted inaccurate information and made sweeping generalisations about the Eastern Front that are just not true. You need to learn more about this conflict or indeed, get your facts right, otherwise there is no point continuing this discussion. It just makes your assertion that the Russian campaign had no effect on the outcome even more laughable.

[jimbotosome]

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Dec 2 2005, 08:41 PM) [post=42520]First of all I am not joking in the slightest and I am disappointed that you feel that I am not serious. I dont take offense however I am widely read on these subjects and have no problem ,given time backing up my assertions. [/b]

Your conclusions on Vietnam leave a lot to be desired. In the US, kids as old as 10 realize that Vietnam was a “political” war that killed many US soldiers who should not have had to die. For you to assume that the US was so concerned about the NVA that they executed a poor strategic and tactical execution, versus US politicians being fools, is what I find very, very hard to take serious. If you are well read on Vietnam, you would never have gone there. Vietnam vets would take tremendous offense at that. I have never in my life heard anyone intimate that the reason the US “cut and ran” was that politics would not let them destroy a very, very weak enemy. Instead they had to stay in a little box and not take on this enemy they could have annihilated completely in a few months. Even the Tet Offensive that was “the last straw” politically for pulling the plug, was a mass slaughter of the NVA. It was when the NVA ran virtually their entire army at the US sacrificing them in hopes of killing enough US soldiers to cause political chaos in the US and cause them to withdraw which they were "teetering" on doing already. The news media played it as a US loss and it removed the taste for war publicly. Since Nixon was not allowed to execute the war, he decided (wisely so) to pull the plug. Remember, Vietnam was a “police action” meaning that the US never declared war on North Vietnam so the President cannot execute a full scale war. Had war been declared then Nixon would have let the bombers go into Cambodia and Laos and bomb them into rubble ending the war by virtue of lack of humans. The North Vietnamese had no air force. You made the (sorry I have to be honest) patently absurd analogy how Vietnam was an example of how air power cannot win a war for you. If you think that war was an issue of poor military decision of any kind, air or otherwise, there is no hope of me or anyone else getting through to you. This is what I find difficult to take seriously and still do. You are welcome to believe what you want, just don’t expect me to pretend like I think that is a plausible or serious contention.

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Dec 2 2005, 08:41 PM) [post=42520]HOWEVER if you are going to assume that my arguments cannot be taken seriously please note that you have made the point that the Russian Winter and Allied Bombing stopped the German Tigers, Stukas and the Blitzkrieg. Ok, first of all the Tiger was not introduced until August 1942 and was developed as a result of engagements with T-34's and KV-1's the previous year. Blitzkrieg as a form of war by the Germans finished before the Tiger came about. As for Allied Bombing stopping the Blitzkrieg, please note the start of the Allied Bombing Offensive and the finish of Blitzkrieg. You'll see a difference in Dates. Your information is not accurate on this subject and if you feel that I can't make arguments well how do you think I feel when your facts like that are wrong?? [/b]

You don’t read what I post very well. You are reaching some conclusions again that are straw man arguments. Perhaps it is a definition in terms in which we have a disconnect. Either that or like I said you are a “tank-o-phile” extraordinaire. Blitzkrieg has nothing to do with tanks. NOTHING. Blitzkrieg in regards to Germany is not limited to the history of using it in France like you are thinking. It is limited to any context by which the Germans may use air power to overwhelm and destroy an enemy. Blitzkrieg as you know means “lightening war”. No tank causes a “lightening war” as clearly illustrated byt the fact we see by Tigers and Panthers “running all out, full throttle” fleeing from the Shermans on the western front but slugging out like madness with better tanks (better than the Sherman) on the eastern front. The fact that the Allies removed the Luftwaffe from 1942 to mid 1944 means that Blitzkrieg and the very concept of Germany ever use it again was completely erased. The Luftwaffe must be used to keep the RAF and USAAF from destroying Rommel in North Africa. This is not “incorrect facts” but rather a miscommunication because you seem to infer that Blitzkrieg has something to do with “efficient use of tanks”. Monty in North African and Patton in Normandy BOTH executed Blitzkriegs against the Germans that made the Blitzkriegs of the Germans in France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, etc look like a “boy scout” operations.

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Dec 2 2005, 08:41 PM) [post=42520]You also state that the Russians never marauded the Germans supply lines. I'm assuming you mean by air. No they didnt launch any strategic offensive bombing of German Cities. However they did have Partisans. Before you laugh this off, please note that there were up to 142,000 partisans operating from as far north as Lake Ladoga and as far south as the Crimea. Thats a significant amount of men that the germans had to fight behind their lines. Figures released after the war state that the Partisans had destroyed 3,263 Bridges, 1,191 Tanks. 4000 lorries and up to 100,000 Germans. Now thats a sizable haul by any standards. As for Tactical Air Power well the Russians had a very powerful air force by the wars end. The IL-2 Sturmovik, one of the most successful attack aircraft ever, had a total of 36,000 aircraft produced making it one of the most produced aircraft in history. Incidentally it was used as a reference when the USAF designed the A-10 in the 1970's!!!! [/b]

Well in the far north, they had the Finns that were a relatively weak nation that kicked their teeth in. This was what they did to the Germans because of “General Winter”. The Finns had the advantage being even better than Russian in the cold just as Russia was saved by the cold reversing their disadvantages against Germany. The Russians had an air force of significance only after the US supplied them. Russian Army left to itself without lend lease would have starved to death like the millions of their familes and citizens they forced to starve to death. IL-2s were a decent plane but were not Jugs or Tempests it was slow like a Stuka. But what do you expect from Russia? BTW: The A10 was NOT based on the IL-2. Where you got that I don’t know. The A-10 was based on the Thunderbolt which was not only a far superior plane to the IL-2, but was also built by Republic who built the A-10. Because of this Republic named the A-10 “Thunderbolt II”. If they had based it on the IL-2, they would have had to remove an engine to slow it down, remove the rear armor to better expose the pilot and give it wooden wings. Good thing they chose to base it on the Jug instead.

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Dec 2 2005, 08:41 PM) [post=42520]You make the point that it was the Allies and only the Allies bombing the Germans back to the Stone age and equipping the Russians that won the war in the East. Please look at production figures for the German Armaments industry up until 1944 and then please revise your statement.
And you have said that Allied supplies made sure that Russia defeated Germany. Show me the figures that prove this. Put the number of aircraft delivered, tanks delivered up against Russian production figures and then come back to this point. [/b]

Gotthard, you are aware that it was not a lack of planes that caused the Luftwaffe to disappear from the skies right? It was a lack of pilots and fuel and that because of the "real" allied air forces. But as far as production goes, most produced planes were sent to the western front to where they could be quickly destroyed by the “friendly” Allies. The Americans and British bombed the German war industry and fuel industry into oblivion. I thought everybody knew this. The “scumbag” Russians would not even let the Americans land in Russia to refuel. They were a piece of crap as a nation and an army. Many believe the Allies fought the wrong scumbag in WWII. Russia was a worse ally to the “good” Allies than Italy was to Germany.

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Dec 2 2005, 08:41 PM) [post=42520]Russia's strategy was not to run scads of tanks at the Tigers and by the way, if you truly knew anything about the Panzerwaffe, you'd know that the Mark IV was the main Battle Tank of the war, not the Tiger. The Tiger production was 1,355 as opposed to 8,200 Mark IV's and 6,500 Mark V Panther. If your posts are to be believed then the Tiger is the only Tank the Germans produced. The Russians learnt the hard way during the early years of the war but by the end of the war they were truly experts in the Air and on land, being able to launch large scale offensives and co-ordinate them as shown in Operation Bagration. [/b]

I was just taking Otto Carius at his word and Bidermann at his too. They claimed the Russians used their tanks as sacrificial pawns. The Tiger was merely the superior tank used in WWII and my points were that it was a non-factor in the outcome of the war though even in its low numbers claimed a lot of T-34s.

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Dec 2 2005, 08:41 PM) [post=42520]You seem to quote Rommel quite a bit. Whilst he never fought on the Eastern Front (Even though Guderian recommended to Hitler appointing him to an eastern command after the Fall of North Africa), His subordinates notably Oberst Von Mellenthin and Oberst Von Luck did and were impressed by the Russian Army. In particular Von Mellenthin was quite complimetary about the Russians ability to Defend and their ability in exploiting bridgeheads. And this from an Acolyte of Rommels! [/b]

I quote Rommel on the principles of domination of Germany which he spoke quite openly about. I never said he referred to the eastern front, just as you could never find a reference of mine stating that. I am being overwhelmed by straw men arguments. You need to read what I am saying and determine if I am making points based on things you conclude the way you think war is won or if I make points based on my theory of war being won from the air alone. I do like Rommel. He was very sharp like Patton and very honest and humble (not so much like Patton). If you are an Acolyte of Rommels, how come you don't know how he felt about air supremacy? He spoke about it almost incessantly in "The Rommel Papers".

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Dec 2 2005, 08:41 PM) [post=42520]In case you are wondering why I have posted this, I am telling you that when it comes to Russia, you have quoted inaccurate information and made sweeping generalisations about the Eastern Front that are just not true. You need to learn more about this conflict or indeed, get your facts right, otherwise there is no point continuing this discussion. It just makes your assertion that the Russian campaign had no effect on the outcome even more laughable.
[/b]

The only thing you have proven here Gotthard is that you stick to eastern front understanding of how war is won which is why I said you sound like a tank-o-phile. You think tanks are significant therefore you reject my conclusions based on me thinking the opposite. But you mistake that I base it as an air-monger (which I am) which means its basis is completely alien to your way of thinking and why you think I quoted errors. An example of this was that your definition of Blitzkrieg had to do with a specific timeframe of war (Germany’s move across France) and you think it involves tanks. In contrast my definition was much like Goering’s which involved rapid defeat of an enemy based on the speed (i.e. lightening) war of using aircraft and bringing in armor when it’s all over but the shouting. Because of this, your arguments turned into straw man arguments where you kept insisting I was saying something or concluding something that I never did. Go back and read the things I wrote carefully and you will see that my words were thought out and rational knowing the unequivocal premise of the hopelessness of even a massive tank army against air supremacy. Therefore knowing that air can wipe out any “armor” advantages as EVIDENCED by the fact that Shermans “dogged” superior German armor across North Africa at “full throttle”, same for Sicily, and same for Normandy, I can again assert and very logically so that the affect of Russia on the war was merely an academic one. The air supremacy would have destroyed every piece of equipment and every soldier Germany produced even if it was all sent to the western front and there had been no eastern front. It would have merely shifted the invasion date by about 6 months. In case you didn’t realize it, Russia was in the process of getting completely annihilated until saved by the skin of their teeth by a record cold winter and large donations of western equipment. They were not erasing German equipment to “bail” out the British in North Africa. They weren’t doing squat to Germany except donating land and equipment. It was not until the nation saving winter combined with the Lend Lease Act that the tide turned in Russia. Perhaps that same Lend Lease equipment sent instead to one of the “friendly” Allied nations would have put Germany away sooner than sending it to Russia. Who knows?

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Jimbo, there must be a definite case of crossed lines because according to what I am reading "blitzkrieg" as per your definition, has nothing to do with Tanks. NOTHING.

Right for starters the concept of Blitzkrieg is a combined arms effort. If you disagree with this then please show me proof. Refer me to a web page or quote me a piece of writing that backs up your assertion that Blitzkrieg has nothing to do with tanks. You are so insistent on this that you must have proof that this is so. My take on Blitzkrieg is that it is a combined arms approach, an approach that utitlises the strength of Tactical Air Power with the striking power of Armor and infantry to overwhelm the enemy. You say that I make "straw man arguments". Well prove me wrong with this one. Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating tanks over airpower. I am saying that they were used together, in conjunction with other services. I am a combined arms o phile. Not a Tank of phile. Also who invented "Blitzkrieg"?? Tank Men thats who. Men like Guderian, Fuller and De Gaulle. Now please be clear, my point is not "Tank was better". My point is merely to challenge your assertion that Blitzkrieg had nothing to do with Tanks. And I'm saying you are wrong. Prove me wrong. And please use some referenced material, your opinion is no more or no less valid than mine so lets use a neutral source shall we?


Now you say the Finns kicked the Russians teeth in. And in 1940 you are right. But thats not the whole story is it??? What happened to the Finns in 1944? Did they win against the Russians? Actually they had to sue for peace having been beaten and seceded territory to the Russians. Or did you know this???

Now I'd better make sure I understand this Jimbo because this statement might be open to misinterpretation. They were a piece of crap as a nation and as an army. I dont deny that their political system was evil abhorrent and the leadership as bad as Hitler and Nazism.

The US didnt face the type of war the Soviets faced. Russia was going to be destroyed. the fact that its military was unprepared is not to be denied and I dont deny that to the West their value on life was appalling. For years after the war, the west was "seduced" by the memoirs of German Generals which were self-serving and ultimately distorted the truth. If you dont believe me then read "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian or "Lost Victories" by Erich von Manstein. You will see what I mean

Now read a piece of literature written by US Colonel David M Glantz of the Foreign Military Studies Office in Leavenworth. This is a US guy and his appraisal of the Russians in WWII. It differs from your opinion and you know I'm gonna go with him cause he provides evidence to back up his claims. Here is the article about it and I have included the summary at the end because it states exactly what you have been preaching about, that "General Winter" stopped the Germans. Here is the link: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/e-front.htm And here is the summary:

The dominant role of German source materials in shaping American perceptions of the war on the Eastern Front and the negative perception of Soviet source materials have had an indelible impact on the American image of war on the Eastern Front. What has resulted in a series of gross judgments treated as truths regarding operations in the East and Soviet (Red) Army combat performance. The gross judgments appear repeatedly in textbooks and all types of historical works, and they are persistent in the extreme. Each lies someplace between the realm of myth and reality. In summary, a few of these judgments are as follows:

- Weather repeatedly frustrated the fulfillment of German operational aims.

- Soviet forces throughout the war in virtually every operation possessed significant or overwhelming numerical superiority.

- Soviet manpower resources were inexhaustible, hence the Soviets continually ignored human losses.

- Soviet strategic and high level operational leadership was superb. However, lower level leadership (corps and below) was uniformly dismal.

- Soviet planning was rigid, and the execution of plans at every level was inflexible and unimaginative.

- Wherever possible, the Soviets relied for success on mass rather than maneuver. Envelopment operations were avoided whenever possible.

- The Soviets operated in two echelons, never cross attached units, and attacked along straight axes.

- Lend lease was critical for Soviet victory. Without it collapse might have ensured.

- Hitler was the cause of virtually all German defeats. Army expertise produced earlier victories (a variation of the post World War I stab in the back. legend).

- The stereotypical Soviet soldier was capable of enduring great suffering and hardship, fatalistic, dogged in defense (in particular in bridgeheads), a master of infiltration and night fighting, but inflexible, unimaginative, emotional and prone to panic in the face of uncertainty.

A majority of Americans probably accept these judgments as realities . In doing so they display a warped impression of the war which belittles the role played by the Red Army. As a consequence, they have a lower than justified appreciation for the Red Army as a fighting force, a tendency which extends, as well, to the postwar Soviet Army. Until the American public (and historians) perception of Soviet source material changes, this overall perception of the war in the East and the Soviet (Red) Army is likely to persist.

In all your posts on this you have not once backed up your claims with any resourced material that backs up your claim that Russia had no effect on the outcome of the war. You will also have noticed that if I am so wrong why has no-one else hopped in to support you on this???

[mteddy]

This is a deep question.......... talking to some front veterans, people that fight in tranches directly, they recognized the size of the front beeing huge, enormous, compared to european campaigns, in wide and deep, and a critical issue was supplies, on a 1200 Km front indepth - that time this is huge, even for today.
Now someone here pointed out the fact that german army came in as opressors, and not as liberators, Hitler ideology concerning russians and slaves in general was total anhielation, according at least to Mein Kampf. Simple examples: Ukrainean general Vlasov with 2 million ukrainean kazachs offered their support as allies to Wermacht to fight against russians, and they have been refused because they haven't been ariens, PURE RACE. Plus almost 5 millions prisoners russians taken in first offensive days.
Now if Hitler politics would have been a stalinistic type, and they would have accepted Vlasov and converted russian prisoners to allied forces, than Russia would have been history today.
WWII was mainly a bllody confruntation in between two major players: HITLER and STALIN, quality, against quantity - cause we have to be honnest to observe the main most operations, and bloodshed have been taken place on eastern front, from Caucazian part,back to Berlin.

Western front has to be considered different, cause it has been opened up lately in 1944, and dice have been rolled plenty of times, previously.

[jimbotosome]

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Dec 3 2005, 08:06 AM) [post=42552]Jimbo, there must be a definite case of crossed lines because according to what I am reading "blitzkrieg" as per your definition, has nothing to do with Tanks. NOTHING.

Right for starters the concept of Blitzkrieg is a combined arms effort. If you disagree with this then please show me proof. Refer me to a web page or quote me a piece of writing that backs up your assertion that Blitzkrieg has nothing to do with tanks. You are so insistent on this that you must have proof that this is so. My take on Blitzkrieg is that it is a combined arms approach, an approach that utitlises the strength of Tactical Air Power with the stri