The Soviets Fought The Japanese Twice

In 1939 it was a border war and the Soviets won it

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/drea2/drea2.asp

In 1945 the Soviets creamed 1.1 million men in 11 days and kicked the Japanese out of china and korea

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/cs...tz3/glantz3.asp

Any comments?

 

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 02:57 PM) [post=40306]In 1939 it was a border war and the Soviets won it

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/drea2/drea2.asp

In 1945 the Soviets creamed 1.1 million men in 11 days and kicked the Japanese out of china and korea

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/cs...tz3/glantz3.asp

Any comments?
[/b]
I hardly think the term "creamed" is the right term to use in relation to the loss of 1.1 million human lives, no matter which side they were on. They were fighting for their country and as such should be given some respect.

 

The Japanese raipd every girl from 5-every women of 50 during the "rape of naking"

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

The Japanese did horribale things to the Chinese

Eyewitness accounts from the period state that over the course of six weeks following the fall of Nanking, Japanese troops engaged in an orgy of rape, murder, theft, and arson. The most reliable accounts came from foreigners who opted to stay behind in order to protect Chinese civilians from certain harm, including the diaries of John Rabe and Minnie Vautrin. Others include first-person testimonies of the Massacre survivors. Still more were gathered from eyewitnesses reports of journalists, both Western and Japanese, as well as the field diaries of certain military personnel. Photographs and filmed footage by John Magee gave further support.

Historians estimate that 20,000 (and sometimes up to 80,000) women from as young as seven to the elderly were raped. According to historians, rapes were often performed in public during the day, and often in front of spouses or family members. It is believed that rape was systematized in a process where soldiers would search door to door for young girls. It is said as well that many women were taken captive to be gang-raped, and some were kept to be raped again. It is believed that it was common for a woman to be killed immediately after being raped, usually by mutilation. According to testimony, some women were forced into military prostitution as comfort women. It is even believed that the Japanese troops often forced families to commit acts of incest: sons were forced to rape their mothers, fathers were forced to rape daughters. Monks who had declared a life of celibacy were forced to rape women for the amusement of the Japanese. Instances of Chinese men forced to rape corpses were not uncommon during the occupation. While the rape peaked immediately following the fall of the city, it continued for the duration of the Japanese occupation.

According to historians, immediately following the fall of the city, Japanese troops searched for former soldiers. During their search, they captured thousands of young men, most of whom were civilians. Many were taken to the Yangtze River, where they were machine-gunned so their bodies would be carried down to Shanghai. Others were used for live bayonet practice. Decapitation was a popular method of killing for the Japanese troops. Reports of soldiers being exhausted from decapitating prisoners were common. According to other reports, some Chinese were burned, nailed to trees, or hung by their tongues, and some women had their breasts cut off. Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets. Pregnant women were often the target of murder, as they would often be bayoneted in the belly.

It is said that as much as two thirds of the city was destroyed as a result of arson. According to reports, Japanese troops torched newly built government buildings as well as the homes of many civilians. There was considerable destruction to areas outside the city walls. Soldiers pillaged from not only the wealthy but the poor as well. Japanese soldiers were given a free hand immediately following the fall of the city. This resulted in the widespread looting and burglary. General Matsui Iwane was given an art collection worth $2,000,000 that was stolen from a Shanghai banker. To aid the Japanese war effort, soldiers collected every bit of metal including hinges on doors following the United States embargo on scrap metal.

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

Those same Japanese are the ones who got creamed
And also the leaders of those same Japanese massively underestimated the Soviet fighting capability
So in a sence they hade it comeing,you cant do such things and get away with it

Ofcurse the Soviets attacked for completly diffrent reasons they coundt care lessabout the chinese but that said it does not matter who punishes the wicked aslong as they get punished and doing such things on such a scale isnt very nice

 

I don't think that was a record for killing. Does anyone know how long it took Stalin to kill 15 million of his own fellow countrymen? I fail to see any nobility in anything the USSR did. Had there have been nobility they would have joined the fray the three months of heavy fighting before the surrender like the other Allies, instead of waiting to the point of collapse where they were afraid there was some territory they wouldn't be able to get a foot into to enslave people. The Soviets only interest in WWII was not for the brotherhood of the Grand Alliance, but for survival. Can anyone name an unselfish act committed by the Soviets in WWII that didn’t reek of self-interest? They wouldn’t even let US bombers land in their bases near Berlin or let Doolittle raiders land in Russia! Some Alliance partners they were!

Is there anybody that was convinced that Stalin was better than Hitler? If you make the case that Stalin was better than Hitler, it has to be based on the fact that Stalin was on the winning side alone. To me the Soviets in WWII were simply a distraction to Hitler. That was the only redeeming quality of them being in the Alliance. In fact, didn’t Britain and France reject them as treaty partners before the war? I think Monty should have captured Berlin and let the Patton attack the oncoming Soviets. Think of how many German and Russian lives that would have saved, as well as much less stress there would have been to Europe in the decades to come. Berlin would have fallen to the British in two or three days, maybe less. The only problem would have been Patton and Monty fighting over who got to finish off the Russian Army. But with Churchill there, we most certainly would have arrived at an amicable compromise and ended up rearming the German’s and letting them do it as they wanted us to in the first place.

I think there has always been an unfortunate myth that Stalin was a miscreant to the Germans because of how they treated his people. This, I believe, is completely wrong. Stalin was instead, simply a miscreant, what had happened to his “people” had no affect on him at all.

Don't mean to sound bitter here, because I am not. I am simply stating the facts as I see them.

 

It is highly unlikely that the Allies would have been able to capture Berlin at all or reach it before the Soviets

That is another Myth

And The Soviets werent ofcurse all that nice but this dosent mean they couldnt fight

But this is Japan forum

 

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 10:40 AM) [post=40322]It is highly unlikely that the Allies would have been able to capture Berlin at all or reach it before the Soviets

That is another Myth

And The Soviets werent ofcurse all that nice but this dosent mean they couldnt fight

But this is Japan forum
[/b]

The British could have taken it in no more than three days. It would have taken this long because they would have not been able to process the mass surrenders in a single day, there were just too many. The Germans tried several times to surrender in whole to Brits and Americans to avoid being brutalized by the Soviets. This is why they fought virtually to the death to stop the Russians. The Russians were savages. The Allies forced many of the Germans to surrender to the Soviets. The US had to stop at the Elbe river to wait on the Russians and the British were in perfect position to take Berlin immediately but were restrained in a diplomatic gesture to allow Russia to "capture Berlin" because Stalin believed that when a capital is captured it symbolizes defeat.

The point here was two fold. If the Allies had punished Russia there would have been no second Russian “attack” (for lack of a better word) on the broken Japanese. The other point is that Russia did not fight the Japanese. They simply exploited a broken enemy who were without supplies and without any heavy weaponry. Here in the states we call that "shooting fish in a barrel". Had the Russians have had even a tiny amount of courage instead of complete greed, they would have joined all the other the Allies in declaring war on Japan in 1941. Cowardice and scum-bagging are NOT two forms of honor and for that reason the Soviets had none whatsoever. I read where a downed and injured American flyer in Germany was found by Russians, bleeding and needing help, the Russian soldiers simply robbed him of his watch and cigarettes and kept moving leaving him there to die. Fortunately a German citizen came to his rescue and despite the aid of his “allies” this flyer lived to describe his encounter with his “friends” from Russia. Some people say “leopards never change their spots”, but I say “once a scumbag, always a scumbag”. It is far more apropos when descibing the Soviets. I may have gone too easy on them. I believe they were actually worse than I have described here but I believe we should give them the benefit of the doubt. The soviet soldiers or officer s were not in the quality of the other armies in the Allies. They were simply cannon fodder meant to rush and overwhelm because most armies can't kill them fast enough stop their human wave attack.

The Soviets had a big army, not a good one. Don't confuse the two. Man for man they were the worst army of any combantant nation in WWII.

 

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:40 PM) [post=40322]And The Soviets werent ofcurse all that nice but this dosent mean they couldnt fight
[/b]
You really have to make your mind up if you want to come on here and discuss aspects of the Second World War, or just stand there and tell people 'how it was' according to you. It gets very boring when you constantly tell everyone else that you are right without offering any real evidence. Or should I say 'lots of evidence', just none that actually substanciates what you believe to be the truth, which wouldn't be so bad except you insist on telling us what you believe to be the truth.

You seem to have a very subjective view that 'Russia = Good & everything else = Bad'.

For example, jimbotosome points out that even though you are correct in that the Japanese were brutal in their occupation of China, leader of the Soviet Union was responsible for the deaths of 15 million of his own people. Your answer "And The Soviets werent ofcurse all that nice but this dosent mean they couldnt fight". Which is amazing.

Are you saying that it would be okay if the Japanese could fight? Which I think they proved beyond any doubt by conquering most of the far east in very little time, and then defending it with a tenacity that was quite frankly frightning. In which case, by your statement, the 'Rape of Nanking' was okay.

Or are you saying that if the Japanese had only killed their own people it would have been okay? After all, if that was the case they wouldn't have been able to kill anywhere as many as Stalin, so that's fine too.

Or are you saying that, and this is probably the most likely of the three, that any country you support can be as brutal, even to their own people, as they like and THAT is okay, as long as every other country is made out to be brutal for their crimes?

If that is the level of your logic, objectivity and acceptance of other views, then I for one am not interested in any more that you have to say.

 

Well to try and add some objectivity to this discussion, The Red Army sure wasnt nice and just ask anyone who lived in Poland or Prussia about that one. As to whether they couldnt fight or were the worst combatants well I dont know about that. In 1941 Russia became engaged in a fight for its very survival and initially its army fared very poorly indeed losing well over 2 million men to Death or capture. There seems to be a pervading myth that the Russians had no part in stopping the Germans at Moscow and that "General Winter" was the main reason coupled with the fact that the Germans were ill-prepared for it. The Russians launched vigorous counterattacks forcing the Germans back and remember up to this point NO-ONE had been able to do that to the German Army. Remember that the Wehrmacht were not the only Army fighting in wintry conditions. The Russian side of the line wasnt warm. The Russian army had to learn new Strategic and Tactical Doctrine whilst at the same time hold back the Germans long enough to put it into practice.

Stalingrad didnt happen by itself - nor was it solely down to German Ineptitude. Russia was already grasping the idea of attacks at a Strategic level and tried it out at Stalingrad, cutting off 6th Army and almost cutting off Army Group A in the Caucasus. That takes some nerve to try and carry out. The pinnacle of their excellence in the Strategic operational arena came in 1944 with the launch of Operation Bagration, wiping out Army Group Centre and cutting off Army Group North.

jimbo has asserted that Man for Man they were the worst army of any combatant Nation in World War 2. so who would you prefer to have defending your city: A Russian Guards Regiment or a Romanian Regiment? Or how about an Italian Bersaglieri Regiment? I know which one I'd pick.

The Russians cared little about life, neither did the Wehrmacht. The two armies who placed inidividual lives above all else were the US and the British and it showed.

By the way, this post is not a justification of Russian Morals and Ethics or indeed a praising of Joe Stalin. It is simply to state that this idea of a human wave that was like a mob does not stand up if you look at the campaigns in the East from 1943 onwards.

Incidentally to all those who think that the western Armies were far superior, apart from the Falaise pocket there is no recorded envelopments of German Forces by Western Armies like there was in the East. The Western Armies were obsessed with their flanks being exposed. The germans and Russians had no such qualms.

The soviet Union stands guilty of horrendous crimes against its own citizens and the citizens of all countries that it advanced through. As an example of this I present the story of the Bishop of Berlin writing to the vatican asking the Pope to announce that being a victim of rape was not a sin due to sex outside marriage as so many women were carrying this and commiting suicide because of it.
The Slaughter of the Polish Officer Corps was another unforgivable deed. Whatever about the Japanese at Nanking it doesnt take away from the fact that Russia committed terrible war crimes.

But to make the point that the Soviet Union had an inept army is a terribly misguided statement.


Maxpower/Dengxiaoping, You really need to tone down your posts. You can make a point without being personal or confrontational in any way. For example, I know that I would disagree with some things Jimbo has posted, but I respect his views and enjoy the debates I have engaged with him and hope to continue to do so!!! You can make a good contribution to this board but without insulting members.

 

Jimbo why should the Soviet Unnion Declare war on Japan when it was fighting the Nazies Almost alone

It can also be argued that the West should have Fought the Germans on a mass scale like the Soviets did in 1941 1942 1943
Where were the Normandy landings during those years?
So areyou saying that Not only should the Soviets been fighting the Euro Axis almost alone they should also be fighting the Japanese
And where were The Allies when the Soviets were fighting the Japanese in 1939?


Planpilot you missunderstnad everything

First read my last post in the Down playing Russias role topic

Second
The Soviets did the most and at the same time they werent nice

You said
You seem to have a very subjective view that 'Russia = Good & everything else = Bad'.

To that i Say
The Soviet Unnion = Great Fighters and did the most of the work but werent very nice
You can be wicked and still kick butt

Yes Stalin killed that many during his rise of power until the war started aslo lots of turncoats were killed or sent to siberia

He did that because he needed to industrialize the country quick and by indirectlly killing so many he achived it
He didnt activelly go out of his way to kill them but he exported lots of grain at the cost of starvation.

Well if you look through the posts you say useing creamed is wrong i just justify useing the word

It is very simple Yes The Soviet Unnion wasent a nice place to live in during the 30-40s but they were the ones that stopped the nazies

And this is still a Japanese forum so talk Japan

 

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]Jimbo why should the Soviet Unnion Declare war on Japan when it was fighting the Nazies Almost alone
[/b]
Why should the Brits have? Why should the Aussies have? Because unlike the Soviets they knew that this was a fight of good versus evil. To the Soviets it was not good versus evil, but east Europe versus West Europe, there was no good from their perspective at all, just evil against evil. The Allies on the other hand were brothers in arms. The Russians were allies only because of the diplomacy of the level-minded of the Allies themselves, not because the Soviets were against a ruthless dictator. In fact the Russians made a pact with Hitler so they could take a part of Poland. What a stab in the back of the French and British, not to mention Poland. Why should the US have included Russia in the lend-lease program? If it weren't for the relations between Britain and the US there would have been no lend-lease for Russia. Starving soldiers are not said to be good ones. The number one objective of the Lend Lease for Russia was keeping their soldiers alive in a God-forsaken country.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]It can also be argued that the West should have Fought the Germans on a mass scale like the Soviets did in 1941 1942 1943 [/b]
Yes, I believe the Russian Dessert Foxes (the Zukov division I believe right?) were what saved Britain and the US armies against Rommel's armies in North Africa and the Russian liberation of Sicily and drive through Italy kept the Mediterranean shipping open as well. The Allies were busy figuring how they could divide up the world up amongst themselves once the Russians finished defeating Germany single-handedly. The virtual reduction the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain by the Soviet Air Force really kept Germany busy to a point Britain didn't have to concern themselves with the war. Don't forget the day and night strategic bombing of France and Germany during 1942-1944 where the Russian B-17s and Halifax’es took out the war industry of the Germans so the Allies could waltz across the Channel unopposed. I don’t have Chairman Mao’s red book so you will have to fill me in on this history sometime, all I get is history from the free countries.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]Where were the Normandy landings during those years?
So areyou saying that Not only should the Soviets been fighting the Euro Axis almost alone they should also be fighting the Japanese
And where were The Allies when the Soviets were fighting the Japanese in 1939?
[/b]
No, I am saying the Soviets were losing badly to the Germans alone, not to the Axis powers. The attack in 1939 was not a war but a probe by an underdeveloped Japanese army out of their element to which they simply withdrew. There was no Russian fight with the Nazis at that time, Russia never fought against more than one Axis nation at a time. The war with Germany didn’t start until late spring 1941. Where were the Russians while the British fought in 1940 alone? I can tell you where. In a pact with Germany that’s where. Their slaughter of their half of the Poles was most impressive! It was about the only battle where the Soviets didn’t lose at least a million men right? One murderous dictator in bed with the other. Had the British have not held up the Germans in North Africa and the BoB, The Germans would have attacked Russia earlier to where “old man winter” was not there to keep the Russians from complete annihilation.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]The Soviet Unnion = Great Fighters and did the most of the work but werent very nice
You can be wicked and still kick butt [/b]
The Soviets were getting their butt kicked. They had a terrible army with no Generals since the Bolsheviks had them all killed out of paranoia. Their soldiers were so bad they had to threaten to shoot them to get them to attack the enemy. Escaping with your life because the enemy got a three month late start and a massive winter stopped your total annihilation is not what I would call “kicking butt”. Had the Germans have kept their supply lines open, the Allies would have occupied Germany and the Germans would have occupied Russia. The allies had to wait on the Soviets to get to Berlin. It took the Soviets over three months to go 36 miles. The Soviets lost more than 300,000 soldiers going that 36 miles, almost as much as they killed in Berlin if you include the civilians the Soviets killed as well. That’s not a good army, that’s a pitiful one. A strategy of running people at guns until the enemy runs out of bullets to kill anymore is good warfare?

Can you imagine how bored the Allies must have been waiting for the Russians to conquer a single city? They wanted to go home, what’s up with those sorry Russians? The biggest problem about taking Berlin would have been negotiating who got to take it first. If they had said “first one to take Berlin gets to keep it”, Patton or Monty or both would have taken it that day. Imagine if the Allies had not destroyed Berlin and Dresden. Maybe the Soviets would still be trying to get in.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]Yes Stalin killed that many during his rise of power until the war started aslo lots of turncoats were killed or sent to siberia [/b]
A turncoat was someone that didn’t agree with Stalin’s dictatorship. Hitler had a few of those himself.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]He did that because he needed to industrialize the country quick and by indirectlly killing so many he achived it
He didnt activelly go out of his way to kill them but he exported lots of grain at the cost of starvation. [/b]
So you are saying the more people you kill the better your industrialization? I never had that principle in economics, I guess my professors just overlooked it. I don’t know about this grain export business, but to starve your people so you can raise funds is not a noble conquest. I would hardly classify that as “not going out of your way” to kill your people. If you are going to kill your people to raise money, why sell them in a slave market? Not hard to see why the Germans saw the stopping of Russia from expanding throughout Europe as a noble deed enough to endure Hitler. I wonder if sapper and the boys that were over there, on this forum, ever felt like they were fighting the wrong enemy, or at least the less immoral one? Imagine how confusing the US soldiers standing on the bank of the Elbe river with the Germans to their west and the Russians coming from their east and being ordered by their officers to be careful not to hurt the “friendlies”. You can bet they had to call for clarification “Say again headquarters? I copied the last command but it made no sense”.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]It is very simple Yes The Soviet Unnion wasent a nice place to live in during the 30-40s but they were the ones that stopped the nazies [/b]
Letting the Nazis run over top of you is not the best way to stop them. They were basically bailed out by the Allies. Russia had no intention of ever paying back on cent of the Lend-Lease. If it hadn’t have been for the fact that Russia was about to fall, all of it would have all gone to the free nations who helped keep Europe free after the war not threaten it with an “Iron Curtain”. By the way, you said the Soviet Union was not a nice place to live in 30-40s. Is this in contradistinction to something? Has the Soviet Union ever been a nice place to live (assuming you were not a dictator).

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]And this is still a Japanese forum so talk Japan
[/b]
The emperor of Japan was a super guy just like Stalin (using your measuring stick). How’s that?

 

Jimbo you really need to read these reports made by the american army

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp

Also Rumania and Hungry and Italy and Bulgaria all fought toghter with the germans against the Soviet unnion

No the Soviet Unnion did not get their but kicked just read the reports

I think maybe you should study more

And the american army reports are a great place to start

 

All of this is wrong

No, I am saying the Soviets were losing badly to the Germans alone, not to the Axis powers. The attack in 1939 was not a war but a probe by an underdeveloped Japanese army out of their element to which they simply withdrew. There was no Russian fight with the Nazis at that time, Russia never fought against more than one Axis nation at a time. The war with Germany didn’t start until late spring 1941. Where were the Russians while the British fought in 1940 alone? I can tell you where. In a pact with Germany that’s where. Their slaughter of their half of the Poles was most impressive! It was about the only battle where the Soviets didn’t lose at least a million men right? One murderous dictator in bed with the other. Had the British have not held up the Germans in North Africa and the BoB, The Germans would have attacked Russia earlier to where “old man winter” was not there to keep the Russians from complete annihilation.


All of it is wrong

At 04:45 on 22 June 1941, four million German, Italian, Romanian and other Axis troops burst over the borders and stormed into the Soviet Union.

Hitler's plans also miscarried before the onset of severe winter weather; he was so confident of a lightning victory that he did not prepare for even the possibility of winter warfare in Russia. Yet his eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23 percent of its average strength of 3,200,000 troops) during the first five months of the invasion, and on 27 November 1941, General Eduard Wagner, the Quartermaster General of the German Army, reported that "We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and materiel. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter."

Taken from an american army report

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Chew/CHEW.asp

The Soviets were not loseing badly before 1944 they actually hade manged to turn the tide long before 1944
You must study more

This is a japanese forum so talk about japan

You are also very wrong about the 1939 war please read this american army report
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/drea2/drea2.asp

 

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 21 2005, 09:16 AM) [post=40366]Jimbo you really need to read these reports made by the american army

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp

Also Rumania and Hungry and Italy and Bulgaria all fought toghter with the germans against the Soviet unnion

No the Soviet Unnion did not get their but kicked just read the reports

I think maybe you should study more

And the american army reports are a great place to start
[/b]
You are quoting these reports as from the American Army. I've told you before, they are research and study papers, not army reports. They do not show the US Army conclusions or policy on their contents, but researchers and officers opinion as to the conclusions THEY have drawn from the facts as they see them. But you still incorrectly state that they are 'US Army reports".

Why are your arguments only ever backed up by a single source?

Then you wonder why nobody is taking you seriously?

 

Why should the Brits have? Why should the Aussies have? Because unlike the Soviets they knew that this was a fight of good versus evil.
eh Jimbo it wasn’t that simple. The above and also the fact that Japan had overrun areas of the British Empire, capturing Thousands of British and Commonwealth Forces in Burma, Singapore, Malaya and Hong Kong, losing two of their biggest ships in the Repulse and Prince of Wales, Threatening India and generally threatening British presence in Asia had more to do with Britain’s fight against Japan than Britain just stepping up to the plate and “helping out” because they recognised the fight between good and evil!


In fact the Russians made a pact with Hitler so they could take a part of Poland. What a stab in the back of the French and British, not to mention Poland.
The reason for the pact with Germany was to buy Russia time not JUST to take part of Poland.

As for your assertion that Russia stabbed Britain and France in the Back, well they were never friends in the first place. Britain and France sent troops, you will recall, to support the White Armies during the Russian Civil War, in fact throughout the Twenties Britain and France never even had dialogue with Russia. In early 1939 the British recognised TOO LATE the need for an alliance with the Russians and sent their diplomatic team BY SHIP. They adopted a laid back attitude to the negotiations and as the Russians felt that the British weren’t serious, they broke off negotiations.

What Happened to Poland was a war crime in itself and I have already stated in a previous post that the Slaughter of the Polish Officer Corps is a crime for which Russia was indicted. And before you go blaming Russia for not helping Poland please remember that Britain and France stand guilty of the very accusation you level at Russia. Remember Czechoslovakia? Now there was a stab in the back. Promising to help a country and then not just standing by but HELPING to dismember it is a stab in the back.

Why should the US have included Russia in the lend-lease program? If it weren't for the relations between Britain and the US there would have been no lend-lease for Russia.
The reason for aiding Russia was not due to friendship but the fact that The West needed Russia to stay in the War. They recognised that if the Russians were defeated then it would give the Germans much needed breathing space to regroup and prepare to properly attack Britain. So it was vital to support the Russians as best they could.
The war with Germany didn’t start until late spring 1941. Where were the Russians while the British fought in 1940 alone? I can tell you where. In a pact with Germany that’s where.
Whats your point? That Stalin should have recognised that the Western Allies who up to this point were no friends of Russia were the good guys and attacked Germany? Sorry but that doesn’t wash. Hindsight is a wonderful gift Jimbo but at the time Russia needed time to regroup and re-arm after the debacle of the Finnish Campaign and the fallout from the purges (Yes Deng, the purges had an effect on the Russian Officer Corps). Stalin was a swine, yes, but also a realist. Let the Germans exhaust themselves in a war with the west and after wards Russia would be in a strong position to pick up the pieces.

Their slaughter of their half of the Poles was most impressive! It was about the only battle where the Soviets didn’t lose at least a million men right? One murderous dictator in bed with the other. Had the British have not held up the Germans in North Africa and the BoB, The Germans would have attacked Russia earlier to where “old man winter” was not there to keep the Russians from complete annihilation

The Germans could not have attacked Russia before 1941 due to the need to re-arm after the French Campaign. They only decided to attack in late 1940.

The Soviets were getting their butt kicked. They had a terrible army with no Generals since the Bolsheviks had them all killed out of paranoia. I agree that the Russians were caught initially with incompetent leadership but by 1942 and 1943 they had gifted officers who I would put on a par with any US or British formation commander.


Their soldiers were so bad they had to threaten to shoot them to get them to attack the enemy. Escaping with your life because the enemy got a three month late start and a massive winter stopped your total annihilation is not what I would call “kicking butt”.

Had the Germans have kept their supply lines open, the Allies would have occupied Germany and the Germans would have occupied Russia. The allies had to wait on the Soviets to get to Berlin. It took the Soviets over three months to go 36 miles. The Soviets lost more than 300,000 soldiers going that 36 miles, almost as much as they killed in Berlin if you include the civilians the Soviets killed as well. That’s not a good army, that’s a pitiful one. A strategy of running people at guns until the enemy runs out of bullets to kill anymore is good warfare?

Can you imagine how bored the Allies must have been waiting for the Russians to conquer a single city? They wanted to go home, what’s up with those sorry Russians? The biggest problem about taking Berlin would have been negotiating who got to take it first. If they had said “first one to take Berlin gets to keep it”, Patton or Monty or both would have taken it that day. Imagine if the Allies had not destroyed Berlin and Dresden. Maybe the Soviets would still be trying to get in.
Jimbo the spring thaw in Eastern Europe came late in 1941 and if they had attacked 3 months earlier as you reckon they should have, they would have gotten stuck in the famed Russian Mud. And your assertion that the only reason the Germans lost because of the winter is total nonsense. It is an affront to the millions of Russians who died fighting bravely , yes bravely in a war of annihilation.
I think you need to read up on your history of the war from 1944 onwards. Lets look at the distances involved. Its roughly 600 miles from Normandy to Berlin. And it took the Allies from 6th June to end of April to achieve this. The Russians were roughly 50 miles east of Vitebsk prior to the Start of Operation Bagration which is roughly 700 miles away. The Russians faced at least 60% of the Wehrmacht Strength in the East. At no stage did the Western Allies ever face German Armies on the Scale that the Russians faced. If the Russians were so pitiful and the Western Allies were so strong, please explain to me how the Mighty US and British Forces failed to breach a line of Defences manned by “Children and Old Men”. I await your explanation with interest. Please also explain how the Russians got to the Gates of Warsaw within 6 Weeks of launching their offensive having just wiped out 1 German Army Group and cutting off another whilst the US and British were still closing the Falaise Gap.

And as for your assertion that the Allies were bored waiting for the Russians to attack, well I cant believe you have made that statement. Bored???

You still don’t get it. The Russians took the brunt of the fighting in WWII, lost more men, suffered more and still emerged victorious. Their army changed from a unwieldy, inept beast into a well respected and experienced fighting force.
Whilst they were led by a ruthless, corrupt, vicious, cruel despot it cannot be denied that the Red Army more than any other deserves respect for its achievements.

 

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Oct 21 2005, 09:28 AM) [post=40375]eh Jimbo it wasn’t that simple. The above and also the fact that Japan had overrun areas of the British Empire, capturing Thousands of British and Commonwealth Forces in Burma, Singapore, Malaya and Hong Kong, losing two of their biggest ships in the Repulse and Prince of Wales, Threatening India and generally threatening British presence in Asia had more to do with Britain’s fight against Japan than Britain just stepping up to the plate and “helping out” because they recognised the fight between good and evil! [/b]
So you are implying that had there not have been attacks by the Japanese that the British, despite the support the US had given them in an undeclared war against Germany, would have given the US the "high hat" and split the coalition? Heinrici, the Brits were ready to take on the whole world alone if necessary. They couldn't give a crap that they were out numbered. That should have been apparent to every allied nation. The Brits are a proud and stubborn people. They have been around in pretty much the same shape or form for centuries. Where do you think the other English speaking nations get their attitude? Didn't they get modern democracy going with the Magna Charta? No, I don't picture the Brits or any of the UK nations sitting around and saying "sorry US, we don't want to antagonize the people that just reamed you over, you are on your own". Surely you can even see it today. There is a kinship between the English speaking nations. You would have to be a very small nation to attack one and not get the others to come after you as well. Back in the days of NATO, this was even a more broad scoped kinship than just English speaking nations. Ask the Russians why they never attacked a NATO nation? It wasn't because they didn't want their wealth and prosperity. It would not have mattered who attacked a NATO nation or who the NATO nation was that was attacked. It was just a bad idea and the Russians knew it throughout the cold war period.


(Gotthard Heinrici @ Oct 21 2005, 09:28 AM) [post=40375]The reason for the pact with Germany was to buy Russia time not JUST to take part of Poland.

As for your assertion that Russia stabbed Britain and France in the Back, well they were never friends in the first place. Britain and France sent troops, you will recall, to support the White Armies during the Russian Civil War, in fact throughout the Twenties Britain and France never even had dialogue with Russia. In early 1939 the British recognised TOO LATE the need for an alliance with the Russians and sent their diplomatic team BY SHIP. They adopted a laid back attitude to the negotiations and as the Russians felt that the British weren’t serious, they broke off negotiations. [/b]
So you are saying if a nation is small enough, it can be taken without regard to those that have a pact with it and that was not scumbagging especially when you requested alliance as though you were their friend? There was a reason the alliance was secret. It wasn't because they felt they had been even handed before Britian and France.

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Oct 21 2005, 09:28 AM) [post=40375]What Happened to Poland was a war crime in itself and I have already stated in a previous post that the Slaughter of the Polish Officer Corps is a crime for which Russia was indicted. And before you go blaming Russia for not helping Poland please remember that Britain and France stand guilty of the very accusation you level at Russia. Remember Czechoslovakia? Now there was a stab in the back. Promising to help a country and then not just standing by but HELPING to dismember it is a stab in the back. [/b]
So you are saying there was some kind of pact between Czechoslovakia and Britain and France and therefore the exact same thing? Did Britain and France attack Czech too as Russia did Poland? I don't get this, but then again I have never been good at conditional ethics.


(Gotthard Heinrici @ Oct 21 2005, 09:28 AM) [post=40375]Why should the US have included Russia in the lend-lease program? If it weren't for the relations between Britain and the US there would have been no lend-lease for Russia.
The reason for aiding Russia was not due to friendship but the fact that The West needed Russia to stay in the War. They recognised that if the Russians were defeated then it would give the Germans much needed breathing space to regroup and prepare to properly attack Britain. So it was vital to support the Russians as best they could.
[/b]
Aren’t you simply making my point that Russia was too weak to resist Germany and therefore if it had not been for the fact that Britain was at stake the US would have let the dilimma work itself out? The dilemma being "which scumbag dictator nation do we want to win, Russia or Germany"? I believe the US would have let them "fight it out". To me it is like, if two murderers are in a knife fight and your friend is dragged into it, you would help your friend. But if your friend is not involved, you simply let them fight it out and not risk getting stabbed yourself. Understand?


(Gotthard Heinrici @ Oct 21 2005, 09:28 AM) [post=40375] The war with Germany didn’t start until late spring 1941. Where were the Russians while the British fought in 1940 alone? I can tell you where. In a pact with Germany that’s where.
Whats your point? That Stalin should have recognised that the Western Allies who up to this point were no friends of Russia were the good guys and attacked Germany? Sorry but that doesn’t wash. Hindsight is a wonderful gift Jimbo but at the time Russia needed time to regroup and re-arm after the debacle of the Finnish Campaign and the fallout from the purges (Yes Deng, the purges had an effect on the Russian Officer Corps). Stalin was a swine, yes, but also a realist. Let the Germans exhaust themselves in a war with the west and after wards Russia would be in a strong position to pick up the pieces. [/b]
Please go back and read the context. Ping asked, "where were the allies when Germany needed to be opposed". This was to bolster his claim that Russia single handedly defeated the Nazis, which shouldn't have washed with you. I was merely pointing out that the Russians were not in the war until forced and the Allies were fighting Germany long before Russia got in. Do you get the point now?

As far as hindsight. Doing the right thing is foresight. It is never questioned in retrospect. You may not be able to predict the future but doing the right thing is always the right choice. You don’t need hindsight to accept a truism. I never thought anyone thought that Stalin was ever out to do the right thing. Stalin was out for Stalin.

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Oct 21 2005, 09:28 AM) [post=40375]Their slaughter of their half of the Poles was most impressive! It was about the only battle where the Soviets didn’t lose at least a million men right? One murderous dictator in bed with the other. Had the British have not held up the Germans in North Africa and the BoB, The Germans would have attacked Russia earlier to where “old man winter” was not there to keep the Russians from complete annihilation

The Germans could not have attacked Russia before 1941 due to the need to re-arm after the French Campaign. They only decided to attack in late 1940.
I disagree. They lost very little in the French Campaign. It was in the BoB where they lost their "Blitzkrieg" strength since the RAF cut the Luftwaffe (what won the French Campaign in the first place) down to size.


(Gotthard Heinrici @ Oct 21 2005, 09:28 AM) [post=40375]Jimbo the spring thaw in Eastern Europe came late in 1941 and if they had attacked 3 months earlier as you reckon they should have, they would have gotten stuck in the famed Russian Mud. And your assertion that the only reason the Germans lost because of the winter is total nonsense. It is an affront to the millions of Russians who died fighting bravely , yes bravely in a war of annihilation.
I think you need to read up on your history of the war from 1944 onwards. Lets look at the distances involved. Its roughly 600 miles from Normandy to Berlin. And it took the Allies from 6th June to end of April to achieve this. The Russians were roughly 50 miles east of Vitebsk prior to the Start of Operation Bagration which is roughly 700 miles away. The Russians faced at least 60% of the Wehrmacht Strength in the East. At no stage did the Western Allies ever face German Armies on the Scale that the Russians faced. If the Russians were so pitiful and the Western Allies were so strong, please explain to me how the Mighty US and British Forces failed to breach a line of Defences manned by “Children and Old Men”. I await your explanation with interest. Please also explain how the Russians got to the Gates of Warsaw within 6 Weeks of launching their offensive having just wiped out 1 German Army Group and cutting off another whilst the US and British were still closing the Falaise Gap.

And as for your assertion that the Allies were bored waiting for the Russians to attack, well I cant believe you have made that statement. Bored??? [/b]
Concerning my affront, it was not to the Soviet soldier but rather the Soviet leadership. I felt sorry for the Russian people. Like it or not, Stalin was a piece of crap. He wasn’t a great military leader nor even a great political leader.

As far as the spring thaw, driving into Russia, they met little resistance. They were in Stalingrad in no time. What you fail to understand it that they didn’t need much more time. They had almost completed the war with Russia even after the winter had started. They were well aware it would not take long to defeat Russia and didn’t prepare for winter. But then again they miscalculated when the war would start, this was the entire point. Russia was a second rate military. There was no Russian army out side of these cities. The drive into russia was not very hard. As long as they kept their supply chain open the war went their way. Had they have taken Crimea, they could have shorted the supply chain. It was greed that saved the Russians, not a great army.

Waiting for Russia to "take Berlin" was insulting to the US and British troops and generals. The Germans fought a hopeless but impressive battle for Berlin against the Russians for two reasons: 1) The Allies would not accept the requests by the Germans in Berlin to surrender but rather told them to wait for the Russians. Berlin was promised to the Russians at Yalta. 2) They knew that the Russians were the most brutal people on the earth, even more brutal than themselves.

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Oct 21 2005, 09:28 AM) [post=40375]You still don’t get it. The Russians took the brunt of the fighting in WWII, lost more men, suffered more and still emerged victorious. Their army changed from a unwieldy, inept beast into a well respected and experienced fighting force.
Whilst they were led by a ruthless, corrupt, vicious, cruel despot it cannot be denied that the Red Army more than any other deserves respect for its achievements.
[/b]
You must understand. As an American, I do believe in the motto of Patton. "Your duty is not to die bravely for your country but make the other poor sap die for his". I am sorry that being a Russian citizen or soldier sucked. But I wasn't exhalting it, Ping was.

You really need to read Rommel's notes in the Rommel Papers. Rommel said one and only one thing won war and as such the Allies when established on dry land in Normandy, the war was completely over for Germany. That was air supremacy. This is what a Blitzkrieg means. The role of air supremacy in the predicted demise of the German nation was obscessed in his books. Lots of people know lots of things about WWII on this forum. Smart people. But there is an almost universal ignorance of the role that the air supremacy played. It is "have air supremacy...completely dominate", "don't have air supremacy, be completely dominated". All you hear is "wow, they had some great tanks" or "how much armor did they have". But the gross underscoping of air power is destined to be an understatement of all time. What tank runs without supplies? Can anyone possible imagine what it is like to be in a major battle or being attacked and run out of food, water, ammunitian, parts, medical aid, fuel? With their communications cut off from bombing? What tanks can get hauled to the front when the train is shot up, what tank is a threat to your lines when it is on fire? What tank is a threat if you know where he is (air recon) and he had no clue where you are? Do you ever wonder why the Allies won almost every battle even though the Germans were much more experienced and had so much better battlefield weaponry? The times they did lose, it was a result of bad judgment and being impatient. The Germans had it "slammed" in reverse with their foot on the throttle. "All this from Shermans?". "Realism department, price check on register 3!"

Tanks are defensive barriers moved only when it is time to slaughter unprotected soldiers after their defensive armor had been mown down by fighter/bombers. Even if the Entire German army had been rushed to France, they still would have lost; it simply would have take a few more months. The Germans were dog meat before the Allies. Their tanks were simply targets in the reticules of fighter bomber sights ready to be set on fire.

Rommel in speaking to his boy immediately before D-Day said that when the Allies got to the beaches that the war was over. He said all he could do is try to prevent that as long as possible. This realism was what Hitler thought was pessimism and why Rommel was sentenced to death, Hitler thinking that Rommel’s pessimism was part of the conspiracy to kill him. In the conversation with his boy, he told them that after Germany was destroyed there would be another great war between the US and the Soviet Union. He said the US would easily win. When his boy said, “but father, the Germans have much better tanks than the Americans”, his father said, “son, we had better tanks than the Americans”.

Letter after letter, communique after communique, Rommel complained that the front would be lost if they didn't get something to stop the terrible tactical bombing. Its the same as today. The things in the air get the large or well defended targets, the boots on the ground get the small things that can't be done from air. Rommel made it clear that air supremacy won North Africa, Sicily, and would win in France and Germany. The air supremacy that the Germans enjoyed before the BoB, was why the concept “blitzkrieg” came to illustrate their battles. Patton moved across France faster than the “Blitzkriegs”. Do you think it was really because the Shermans were so dominant over the Tigers and Panthers? No, the allies got it. Hitler didn’t. Hitler like most tank-fanatics thinks that armor is an offensive weapon. He de-emphasised air power and the Allies emphasised air power. Tank-a-holics can laugh at the Shermans all they want. Just, whatever you do, don’t dare move or expose that slow Tiger even if you are under heavy artillery attack, because air power typically didn't miss.

Shermans were for making men run in routed panic when their armor was dead. The tank was a defensive weapon if you have air supremacy. It is a flaming box of metal killing all nearby fellow soldiers if you don’t. Bring the entire eastern front to Normandy. So-friggen-what? Just more little tanks the fighter/bomber guys get to paint on the sides of their airplanes. What is the German phrase for “shooting gallery”? Why should the allies in the West be afraid of a Tiger, Panther or T-34-85 if it is on fire, other than getting their hands burned if they try to pull the charred enemy corpses out of it? I just don’t get the reverence for the Eastern front. To me it was as fearsome as the Maginot line. It was simply a more target rich environment for the happy aviators. For a weak army like Russia, it was a living hell. Quite a contrast.

Sorry tank fans, sometimes you have to state the facts no matter how much it dimishes the romaticizing of these weapons. WWII was an air war for all nations that had success whenever they had success.

 

Plant-pilot

Uhm this setnace

At 04:45 on 22 June 1941, four million German, Italian, Romanian and other Axis troops burst over the borders and stormed into the Soviet Union. For a month the three-pronged offensive was completely unstoppable as the Panzer forces surrounded hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops in huge pockets that were then reduced by slower-moving infantry divisions while the panzers charged on.

Does not come form the American amry reports but it is well known and can be looked up in any world war 2 book, just because you didnt know it does not mean it didnt happen

The sentance is copied from a free encylopedia and I am quiter certain that if you look up in any encyclopedia it will say the same thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front...World_War_II%29

Also dont forget You were wrong About Napoleon and the masse waves which i disproved in the "stop downplaying russias effort" topic by giving you the exact text from the introduction of the field manula used

The traditional view of the Soviet armor is huge masses of tanks blundering about the battlefield in columns of bunches or herd-like formations until they either roll over the opposition by sheer weight of metal or are shot up by smaller, expertly manoeuvring westerners. Ideally this volume will dispel some of that misconception by laying out the official basis for the real Soviet tank and armoured vehicle tactics as practiced for most of world war two.

You can read it here and by it from the link also other field manuals are avalibel images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif

http://www.battlefront.com/products/books/...armorintro.html

And never forget you were wrong about Napoleon

Jimbo you were wrong about the Soviets fighting ONLY the nazies so if you were wrong about that you have the ability to be wrong and since you have the ability to be wrong you must study images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif

 

JIMBO READ THIS

THEY ARE REPORTS MADE BY THE AMERICAN ARMY, READ THEM THEN TELL ME THAT YOU KNOW MORE THEN THE AMERICAN ARMY, READ THEM AND SAY HOW WRONG THE AMERICAN ARMY IS

READ THEM AND KNOW THAT YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp

ALSO READ THE INTRODUCTION TO THE TRNSLATED VERSION OF THE SOVIET FIELD MANUAL

http://www.battlefront.com/products/books/...armorintro.html

 

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Oct 21 2005, 03:28 PM) [post=40375] The war with Germany didn’t start until late spring 1941. Where were the Russians while the British fought in 1940 alone? I can tell you where. In a pact with Germany that’s where.
[/b]

And, as a part of this pact, they supported the Germany with huge supplies of strategic materials.

 

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 22 2005, 11:30 AM) [post=40408]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>JIMBO READ THIS

THEY ARE REPORTS MADE BY THE AMERICAN ARMY, READ THEM THEN TELL ME THAT YOU KNOW MORE THEN THE AMERICAN ARMY, READ THEM AND SAY HOW WRONG THE AMERICAN ARMY IS [/b]

They are not.... I say again NOT reports made by the US Army. They are research papers submitted to the Army's research library and forward researcher's and officer's opinion of conclusions taken from the facts as they see them.

I don't know how many times I have to point this out to our Soviet supporting DengXiaoPing/MaxPower but he repeatedly quotes them as 'US Army reports' and tells people that they must be wrong to disagree with their findings. Some research papers are submitted with controvertial conclusions in order to stimulate discussion and thought.

If I submitted a paper on (for example) the "outcome of a war against two super powers using Laser and Sonic Technology" and it was well written, there is every chance that the library may include it if they considered it a reasonable research paper. It doesn't mean that it ever happend or if it did the conclusion would be the same as mine. These papers should only be submitted as evidence to back up a theory when substantiated by other documents. Even then, they should not be quoted as being "US Army reports".

Shall I say it again? THEY ARE NOT US ARMY REPORTS!

DengXiaoPing/MaxPower I for one am getting bored with the lack of logic in your arguments, the lack of acceptance that your opinion isn't the only one and most of all the abuse.

 

The reports are real anyone can see it

First just look who has made it then see what materials they refer to and also see how many were working on it

Unlike you the reports are built on solid facts gotten from translated german archives there is no doubt in anyones mind who actually read the reports that the facts in them are correct

And no you could not enter a report because if you are to lazy to read them then you would be way to lazy to write one

And are you telling me that all reports are wrong that have been posted by the us army or just those that prove you so dead wrong?

Too often soldiers fall victim to their preconceptions about potential adversaries' patterns of behavior. A popular notion among U.S. officers is that military history in the Soviet Union consists of little but propaganda broadsides to justify Soviet actions. On too few occasions do U.S. officers critically analyze the past campaigns of potential adversaries. In particular, the rich vein of military history in Russian language military periodicals and literature has been neglected. The language barrier, time constraints, and changing Army requirements combine to hinder the type of in-depth historical research that affords penetrating insights into Soviet military planning, operations, and tactics.

That paragraf applies to you and to everyone who down plays the Soviet Unnion role

Just look at the notes and see all the refrenses do you really think they just made it all up?
The papers speak for them selves they are true and they are correct if you can not see it

Look at all the refrences, it takes years to write papers like these and you dismiss them justlike that, it is you who are blinded by your cold war thinking that cant see that the papers and the books and the universties are correct