Jump to content
=38=Tatarenko

Terrible ...

Recommended Posts

I've read many times that the Soviets could have defeated Nazi Germany without any involvement from the U.S. But mostly those comments are internet based, not real fact based studies. It's hard for me to imagine honestly, given the technological edge displayed by the Germans. Without the massive bombing suffered by German industry in the mid and late war years, how much bigger would that edge have been? Without Germany having to fight in Italy, (as it is hard to imagine Britain landing in Italy without the same U.S. involvement) wouldn't a lot of those German forces been sent East?

 

Could someone point me towards either an honest authoritative study or even a thought provoking what if type of book that details whether or not the Soviets could have defeated Germany alone?

 

I think there was a pretty good reason for Stalin wanting the rest of the allies to open another front for Germany to fight on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you might be putting the Australian school's history curriculum under some severe pressure with a statement like that Cybermat ;) . The truly critical times for the Soviet Union were between June '41 and January '42. By the time the Wehrmacht were halted before Moscow they had shot their bolt. Allied supplies of tanks and aircraft at this time made no material difference to the outcome. Later and much vaster supplies of raw materials, industrial plant, trucks, boots and tinned food speeded up the inevitable by months if not years and saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of British, American and Canadian troops who would otherwise have faced a much stronger foe on the beaches of Normandy.

 

We haven't gotten to talking about WWII at school yet :)

 

But you prove what I've been saying many times: no one country won WWII. The allies supplied the Russians, who tied up German troops who could've defended Normandy. And of course the Russians captured Berlin.

 

Of course, Russia couldn't have gotten those supplies if the supplies hadn't gotten to Britain, which is why the Battle of the Atlantic was one of the most important. And it cost the lives of over 60,000 Allied and German sailors :(

 

BTW, I don't think that it was just the British, Americans and Canadians who landed at Normandy. There were Poles, French, maybe some Scandinavians and I'm pretty sure some anti-Nazi Germans :)

 

And my hairdresser's grandfather, a radio operator in the RAAF, took some pictures of the invasion fleet while they were flying over it.

 

And my hairdresser's boyfriend's grandfather was a U-boat captain :)

Edited by Cybermat47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We haven't gotten to talking about WWII at school yet :)

 

But you prove what I've been saying many times: no one country won WWII. The allies supplied the Russians, who tied up German troops who could've defended Normandy. And of course the Russians captured Berlin.

 

Of course, Russia couldn't have gotten those supplies if the supplies hadn't gotten to Britain, which is why the Battle of the Atlantic was one of the most important. And it cost the lives of over 60,000 Allied and German sailors :(

 

BTW, I don't think that it was just the British, Americans and Canadians who landed at Normandy. There were Poles, French, maybe some Scandinavians and I'm pretty sure some anti-Nazi Germans :)

 

And my hairdresser's grandfather, a radio operator in the RAAF, took some pictures of the invasion fleet while they were flying over it.

 

And my hairdresser's boyfriend's grandfather was a U-boat captain :)

 

You're quite right.  No one country won the war.  When the shooting starts, everyone loses but the defeat of Nazi Germany required the Americans to pay $billions and the Russians a blood sacrifice measured in the millions. Britain happened to be a very handy unsinkable aircraft carrier anchored off the coast of north-west Europe.  The Battle of the Atlantic was vital to the survival of the UK, not the USSR. Most lend-lease supplies to the Soviets from the US went by routes outside of the UK.

 

The Soviets already had the best tank of the war in production before the Germans invaded.  They had a vast amount of artillery.  They always had more manpower. They learned quickly how to relocate whole factories from European Russia to East of the Urals and restart production. They were equipped with infantry weapons well suited to urban warfare.  Did I say there was a lot of 'em?

The Soviets needed raw materials rather than finished products.  The supply of US made transport vehicles of all kinds enabled them to concentrate on the production of armour.  The design capacity of their aircraft industry caught up and surpassed the Germans. In contrast to Hitler, Stalin came to realise that the most important role a commander in chief can play was to husband his reserves and let his generals fight the war.

 

But most of this happened after 1942.  After being thrown back from Moscow in the winter of '41 the Germans could never defeat the Russians.  It was the high watermark of German advantage.  Hitler knew this.  It became a matter of when rather than if.

 

 

Peace = Hairdresser happiness.  It's a good thing. :cool:

Edited by arthursmedley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Russians were supplied with industrial know-how well before the war in 1920's and 1930's by US companies and other parties. The investments in Soviet were quite extensive and brought Soviets closer to modern industrial capability. A bit of the investments were lost due the low educational levels of Russian workers. They simply could not operate the machinery given to them. So you can say that they were a mere giant with clay feet before picking up on things. Not many even know about this or how much US really did invest in Russia before the war and what it helped them to gain. Read a very good book about it some time ago, the author had done some extensive research in the Russian and other archives to find out this. So the roots of Soviet capabilities are partially due western and US investments. The book was called "Stalin's Organs" (same as the katyusha ;)

 

 And Stalin's terror. I really wonder why the Russians admire him even he treated his own people like dogs, killed them as he wished and sent to Siberia. Turned communism from an ideal to worship of him. The number of casualties to the Communist dark ages far and beyond exceed a certain Austrian guy, making him look like a petty beginner. There is not that much critical writing about the "Father Sun" as he is so tied to the Great Patriotic War. And that is like a second religion to Russians. Quite an interesting mix there if you take the time to read some good books. The war itself has been written about so much but not the story of the people before and after the war. 

 

 Anyways..over 52 million people lost their lives in 2nd World War. Let's hope there won't be a 3rd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is common ''urban legend'' about Stalin cleansings of 30s.In fact it was just ordinary gangsta war.One group were supporters of Stalin,veterans of Russian Civil War from 1st Cavalry Army.Second group were supporters of Trockyi,formal members of Kozak Cavalry Army.Stalin gained an upper hand in this struggle,got rid of Trockyi (he was later assasinated in exile in Mexico) and also got rid of all of his supporters.Standard procedure amongst such sociopathic groups.

And in fact,we can say,that ''smaller evil'' won over ''great evil'' in USSR as Trockyi was fanatic promoting so called ''permanent revolution'' trying to form society based on total slave work. Stalin was kind of restrained in this matters and quite pragmatic.And if you study a bit more in this field,you will find that majority of those ''executed marshals,generals,commisars...'' were total idiots,sadists an largely uncompetent to take their stand.But thats another story.

 Nevertheless casualities on Soviet side were huge and their stand against Germans is unrivaled in history and I dare to say it will never be overcome.For that they have my sincere gratitude.

Is this some revisionist history, Ive read extensively about the period and Im not sure where you are getting your information from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're quite right.  No one country won the war.  When the shooting starts, everyone loses but the defeat of Nazi Germany required the Americans to pay $billions and the Russians a blood sacrifice measured in the millions. Britain happened to be a very handy unsinkable aircraft carrier anchored off the coast of north-west Europe.  The Battle of the Atlantic was vital to the survival of the UK, not the USSR. Most lend-lease supplies to the Soviets from the US went by routes outside of the UK.

 

The Soviets already had the best tank of the war in production before the Germans invaded.  They had a vast amount of artillery.  They always had more manpower. They learned quickly how to relocate whole factories from European Russia to East of the Urals and restart production. They were equipped with infantry weapons well suited to urban warfare.  Did I say there was a lot of 'em?

The Soviets needed raw materials rather than finished products.  The supply of US made transport vehicles of all kinds enabled them to concentrate on the production of armour.  The design capacity of their aircraft industry caught up and surpassed the Germans. In contrast to Hitler, Stalin came to realise that the most important role a commander in chief can play was to husband his reserves and let his generals fight the war.

 

But most of this happened after 1942.  After being thrown back from Moscow in the winter of '41 the Germans could never defeat the Russians.  It was the high watermark of German advantage.  Hitler knew this.  It became a matter of when rather than if.

 

 

Peace = Hairdresser happiness.  It's a good thing. :cool:

 

I have to respectfully disagree with this.  Without the Allied presence in the west, and in North Africa Hitler would have been able to free up many of the troops that were guarding the Western approaches to fight in Russia.  The German 7th Army is an example.  Instead of sitting in Northern France waiting to take the rest of the country in the event of an Allied invasion to the south it would have been free to fight on the Eastern Front, possibly replacing some of those less reliable Hugarian/Romanian/Italian groups that crumbled under Operation Uranus.  The crack units of the Africa Corps wouldn't have been trapped in Tunis but would have been able to be involved in the invasion.

 

More importantly, the logistical support that started flowing in early 1942 wouldn't have been present.  You stated that the trucks and all of that were helpful but wouldn't have affected the final outcome.  Yet you fail to realize that the biggest reason that the German invasion failed in 1941 was due to logistic failures.  Many of those troops brought in during the Battle of Stalingrad were brought in on trucks made in the US.   Without them the grind would have overwhelmed the defenders and the city probably would have fallen. 

 

Also forgotten was the fact that had Britain been defeated it probably would have been a much easier task to get Japan to attack the Soviet Union from the East.  Many of the divisions that Stalin used to throw back the Germans came from the East, in fact the best troops often were considered to be the ones in the Eastern theatre.  If Japan had fought, even if she didn't win it would have stressed the Soviet Union enough to probably crack it.  Stalin couldn't fight a two front war any better than Germany could.  With Britain defeated and essentially India, Malaya and Burma under pseudo German control (as well as the middle east and it's oil supplies) there would have been a strong case for Japan to attack the Soviets.  The Germans could have supplied the Japanese with Oil from the region without the need to immediately take out the Dutch East Indies.  In fact, with England gone, the DEI probably would have come to an 'agreement' with the Imperial Japanese to give them control of the region, ala the Vichy French. 

 

The ultimate reality is that no country could have won the war on it's own.  Even the US wouldn't have been able to do it, short of developing atomic weapons and nuking the Japanese and Germans into submission.  Without the USSR the German Army would have easily beaten back any attempt to regain France or Western Europe.  Without England there would have been no staging areas to send supplies to the Soviets and their logistical problems would have increased dramatically.  The Caucauses campaign probably would have been successful since the Germans would have had larger numbers of troops to use in the campaign and would have robbed the Soviets of their biggest sources of raw materials and oil.  I won't even get into the potential southern route into Russia via Turkey or Iraq.  Without the US there would have been no supplies available that would have helped keep the Soviets fed and supplied.  Without the Chinese the Imperial Japanese would have been free to take out Soviets from the Eastern side of the Soviet Union. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Allies' greatest ally in all this was Hitler.  :huh:

 

David Glantz suggests in one of his books (little while since I read it but anyway) that if the Allies hadn't opened a second front with Germany then the Cold War would have been fought from Paris rather than Berlin. The thing with Lend-Lease to my mind is that whilst the West seems to endlessly go on about it, the Red Army only supplied the slightly important thing of manpower... Also, Lend-lease really only allowed the Red Army to go onto the attack rather than to defend. They seemed to be doing the defence bit rather well up to that point. I do take Glantz's words with a bit of salt however because I've read accounts (yeah I know...) of how Soviet units by 1945 were literally not being reinforced at all because of manpower shortages.

 

Really, I'd still have my bets on the Soviets for a victorious war even so. Japan had rather bad time of it in 1939 in the Nomonhan/Khalkin Gol incidents so it had decided not to fight the USSR. It's mentioning that throughout the war Stalin kept a fair few soldiers in the East. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to add to this, but judged by a point of view of some young Russians I have encountered in my life time, the below neve happened, is a lie and a western world propaganda.

 

Judge for yourselves. Sources added. The number does not include WW2 casualties, just Stalin's "leadership".

 

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm

 

Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20,000,000

  • There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools are generally associated with the right and left wings of the political spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded by prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even having a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to former Soviet archives has proven that their side is right.
  • Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school:
    • Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
      • Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
      • Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
      • Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
    • Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
    • Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago,
      • Intro to Perennial Classics Edition by Edward Ericson: Solzhenitsyn publicized an estimate of 60 million. Aleksandr Yakovlev estimates perhaps 35 million.
      • Page 178: citing Kurganov, 66 million lives lost between 1917 and 1959
    • Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
      • 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
      • 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
      • 1939-45: 18,157,000
      • 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
      • TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
    • William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
    • Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
      • Cited by Wallechinsky:
        • Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
        • Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
    • MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.
  • And from the Lower Numbers school:
    • Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
    • Cited in Nove:
      • Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
      • Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
      • Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
      • Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.
    • Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
    • Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.
    • MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.
  • As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the German invasion.
  • Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity:
    • In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
    • Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
    • Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
    • Daniel Chirot:
      • "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
      • "Highest": 40M
      • Citing:
        • Conquest: 20M
        • Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
        • Medvedev: 40M
    • Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
      • Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
      • [ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]
    • John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl.
      • Kulaks: 7M
      • Gulag: 12M
      • Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors)
    • Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
    • Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
    • Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.
  • Famine of 1926-38, including the Holodomor:
    • Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 4.2M in Ukraine + 1.7M in Kazakhstan
    • Green, Barbara ("Stalinist Terror and the Question of Genocide: the Great Famine" in Rosenbaum, Is the Holocaust Unique?) cites these sources for the number who died in the famine:
      • Nove: 3.1-3.2M in Ukraine, 1933
      • Maksudov: 4.4M in Ukraine, 1927-38
      • Mace: 5-7M in Ukraine
      • Osokin: 3.35M in USSR, 1933
      • Wheatcraft: 4-5M in USSR, 1932-33
      • Conquest:
        • Total, USSR, 1926-37: 11M
        • 1932-33: 7M
        • Ukraine: 5M
Edited by 9./JG54_Stray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note the fact that Japan didn't attack the soviet and freed up 30 fresh divisions to throw at Germany is often forgotten.

Japan could have opted not to attack the US at Pearl Harbour and advanced in from the east in support of Germany and what
would have happened then is unknown.

 

Also the delay in long range bombers that could reach beyond Ural (and even get to the US) made the outcome quite clear
and I agree that Hitler himself became the Allies best friend in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As this is a forum for a flight simulator software and not a political/history discussion. Here i saw many inconsistences, misinformation and many things, that sadly now, is hard to get the real true, because Russia/Soviet Union and Ocidental countries made their part to change some stats to their propaganda rules in cold war times.

 

In my opinion, here in a forum of this kind what matters about this history part is the air war accuracy and that german attacks soviet union and in the final soviet union invades german and with the colaboration/help with many other countries they win the war with their allies. Nothing more matters here, or soon it will be a disgusting party of pro-nazi vs pro-comunists vs stereotypical bad knowledge guys. Sad that this tread already started to be and its good to the moderators do something. If someone wants this kind of discussions, the internet are full of dedicated places to do it, but please not here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to respectfully disagree with this.  Without the Allied presence in the west, and in North Africa Hitler would have been able to free up many of the troops that were guarding the Western approaches to fight in Russia.  The German 7th Army is an example.  Instead of sitting in Northern France waiting to take the rest of the country in the event of an Allied invasion to the south it would have been free to fight on the Eastern Front, possibly replacing some of those less reliable Hugarian/Romanian/Italian groups that crumbled under Operation Uranus.  The crack units of the Africa Corps wouldn't have been trapped in Tunis but would have been able to be involved in the invasion.

 

More importantly, the logistical support that started flowing in early 1942 wouldn't have been present.  You stated that the trucks and all of that were helpful but wouldn't have affected the final outcome.  Yet you fail to realize that the biggest reason that the German invasion failed in 1941 was due to logistic failures.  Many of those troops brought in during the Battle of Stalingrad were brought in on trucks made in the US.   Without them the grind would have overwhelmed the defenders and the city probably would have fallen. 

 

Also forgotten was the fact that had Britain been defeated it probably would have been a much easier task to get Japan to attack the Soviet Union from the East.  Many of the divisions that Stalin used to throw back the Germans came from the East, in fact the best troops often were considered to be the ones in the Eastern theatre.  If Japan had fought, even if she didn't win it would have stressed the Soviet Union enough to probably crack it.  Stalin couldn't fight a two front war any better than Germany could.  With Britain defeated and essentially India, Malaya and Burma under pseudo German control (as well as the middle east and it's oil supplies) there would have been a strong case for Japan to attack the Soviets.  The Germans could have supplied the Japanese with Oil from the region without the need to immediately take out the Dutch East Indies.  In fact, with England gone, the DEI probably would have come to an 'agreement' with the Imperial Japanese to give them control of the region, ala the Vichy French. 

 

The ultimate reality is that no country could have won the war on it's own.  Even the US wouldn't have been able to do it, short of developing atomic weapons and nuking the Japanese and Germans into submission.  Without the USSR the German Army would have easily beaten back any attempt to regain France or Western Europe.  Without England there would have been no staging areas to send supplies to the Soviets and their logistical problems would have increased dramatically.  The Caucauses campaign probably would have been successful since the Germans would have had larger numbers of troops to use in the campaign and would have robbed the Soviets of their biggest sources of raw materials and oil.  I won't even get into the potential southern route into Russia via Turkey or Iraq.  Without the US there would have been no supplies available that would have helped keep the Soviets fed and supplied.  Without the Chinese the Imperial Japanese would have been free to take out Soviets from the Eastern side of the Soviet Union. 

 

Tom, I agree with a great many of your points.  Certainly no one country could have "won" a global war on the scale of WW2.  My point is Nazi Germany could never have defeated the Soviet Union regardless of help and supplies from other countries.  

It's a moot point as to what the Germans would consider a victory over the Soviet Union.  They would never have enough manpower to subdue the whole country.  Hitler seems to have envisioned an eastern empire without examining how the two great previous empires the world had known operated.

 

Referring to "what ifs" seems pointless to me.  We must examine what actually happened.

 

 You make a good point about the failure of logistics.  That was because the Wehrmacht was essentially a horse drawn army.  Armoured spearheads could and did run hundreds of kilometers into the Soviet front but the infantry were on foot.  They moved at the same speed as Napoleon's armies a century and a half before.  The Russians dealt with Barbarossa in essentially the same way as they dealt with Napoleon.  They traded space for time.

Men and material for the defence of Stalingrad arrived by railhead and then made the short journey to the banks of the Volga to be fed piece-meal into the city.

 

The vast majority of lend-lease supplies to the Soviets came directly from the USA via Alaska and Persia.  American ships in Arctic convoys came directly from the eastern seaboard, bypassing the UK completely. We in the west - as you can see on these boards - put an over-emphasis on our own part in WW2.  Its only natural really. The strategic bomber offensive mounted by the RAF and the USAAF undoubtedly caused great damage to German industrial production but had hardly got into it's stride before the battle of Kursk in the summer of '43 and by late '44 and early '45 when it was at its most destructive it had become a strategic irrelevance.

   I see lots of western theatres of war have been mentioned but the area that tied up the most number of German divisions outside the Soviet Union was Yugoslavia.  

 

 Threads like these, as well as being really interesting are often a useful insight into our own attitudes and historical prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As this is a forum for a flight simulator software and not a political/history discussion. Here i saw many inconsistences, misinformation and many things, that sadly now, is hard to get the real true, because Russia/Soviet Union and Ocidental countries made their part to change some stats to their propaganda rules in cold war times.

 

In my opinion, here in a forum of this kind what matters about this history part is the air war accuracy and that german attacks soviet union and in the final soviet union invades german and with the colaboration/help with many other countries they win the war with their allies. Nothing more matters here, or soon it will be a disgusting party of pro-nazi vs pro-comunists vs stereotypical bad knowledge guys. Sad that this tread already started to be and its good to the moderators do something. If someone wants this kind of discussions, the internet are full of dedicated places to do it, but please not here.

 

 

Many people in this tread sadly not read the Forum rules: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/3-forum-rules-v10/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arthur, there is one basic error in that. You seem to assume that to Germany win the war in the east equals occupying the whole country. In WW I Germany won the war in east, and it didn't take that. For Germany to win, it would have been enough to soviet regime to collapse.

 

 

As this is a forum for a flight simulator software and not a political/history discussion. Here i saw many inconsistences, misinformation and many things, that sadly now, is hard to get the real true, because Russia/Soviet Union and Ocidental countries made their part to change some stats to their propaganda rules in cold war times.

 

In my opinion, here in a forum of this kind what matters about this history part is the air war accuracy and that german attacks soviet union and in the final soviet union invades german and with the colaboration/help with many other countries they win the war with their allies. Nothing more matters here, or soon it will be a disgusting party of pro-nazi vs pro-comunists vs stereotypical bad knowledge guys. Sad that this tread already started to be and its good to the moderators do something. If someone wants this kind of discussions, the internet are full of dedicated places to do it, but please not here.

 

 

 

Actually, most of the people writing here seem to fall in to "interested about the subject and also having some knowledge about it"-guys. My interpretation of what happened and what could have happened is different than Arthurs, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have knowledge about the subject. We just draw different conclusions about the facts.

 

And if this conversation breaks forum rules, I am sure one of the moderators will remind us of that.

Edited by mprhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, most of the people writing here seem to fall in to "interested about the subject and also having some knowledge about it"-guys. My interpretation of what happened and what could have happened is different than Arthurs, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have knowledge about the subject. We just draw different conclusions about the facts.

 

And if this conversation breaks forum rules, I am sure one of the moderators will remind us of that.

 

 

I couldn't agree more. This is one of the most interesting and informative threads i've read on this board and I cant see any reason to censor it. Mature and educated arguments are what make freedom of speech valuable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of things can be interesting and informative to discuss but many of them are not the objective of this forum. This theme goes to a sensible subject that easily goes to disgusting discussion and is outside the porpose of this forum. I already saw this issues in others games/simulators, and curiosity almost all soviet vs german like in the RO1/2 and fast goes to ugly discusions because it crash on political ideologies, misinformations and a mess in stats available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of things can be interesting and informative to discuss but many of them are not the objective of this forum. This theme goes to a sensible subject that easily goes to disgusting discussion and is outside the porpose of this forum. I already saw this issues in others games/simulators, and curiosity almost all soviet vs german like in the RO1/2 and fast goes to ugly discusions because it crash on political ideologies, misinformations and a mess in stats available.

 

 

I agree 100%

 

Reason I was in the beginning, and AM hesitant to discuss or put in political prespective into discussions as this one. A small bit is needed for our pourposes, but thats all IMHO

 

I think we should focus on the strategy, the soldiers, military hardware,and how they worked to gether and against each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all posts in this thread, it amazes me that nobody found fit to ever mention The Shoah, the “final solution” that would have been achieved in the case war would have drag on for another year or two. No European Hebrew would have survived.

We should always remember this simple thing. Stalin’s regime was certainly terrible, but Hitler’s one was different, probably different than anything other in history. If you’re not a Hebrew, just put yourself on a Jew’s shoes for a moment. The only thing a Nazi had to tell you are: “You’re a Jew. You must die.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's because the thread is more about the cruel fate of soviet citizens. You are right about the Jews ofc. And I think that is one of the reasons why it seems to be easier to say that nazi regime was worse than Stalins. Nazi would put you in gas chamber if you were born to "wrong race" no matter what you did or didn't do, in Stalins Soviet Union in theory you had to do something yourself to get shot. Ofc in reality vast majority of people to die under Stalins oppression were totally innocent of anything. Both regimes were really sick and twisted, but for some reason talking about the nature of Stalinist Soviet Union makes many more people uncomfortable than speaking about Nazi-Germany and their atrocities.

 

But I guess that flight sim forums are not necessarily the best place of discussing about nature of stalinism, although it does serve the purpose of maybe giving information to some who have not been so interested about that side of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that a competitive discussion to define what was the worst slaughter of the XXth century and which political regime was the ugliest, is really adequate for this forum. As Stavka said, it can get real ugly very quickly.

 

I will not close this topic for now, but at the fisrt skid of the discussion, I will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is online

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/

 

Strategy for Defeat

The Luftwaffe

1933-1945

by

WILLIAMSON MURRAY

 

There are some nice graphics such as:

 

AAF-Luftwaffe-XXX.jpg

Edited by MiloMorai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As this is a forum for a flight simulator software and not a political/history discussion. Here i saw many inconsistences, misinformation and many things, that sadly now, is hard to get the real true, because Russia/Soviet Union and Ocidental countries made their part to change some stats to their propaganda rules in cold war times.

 

In my opinion, here in a forum of this kind what matters about this history part is the air war accuracy and that german attacks soviet union and in the final soviet union invades german and with the colaboration/help with many other countries they win the war with their allies. Nothing more matters here, or soon it will be a disgusting party of pro-nazi vs pro-comunists vs stereotypical bad knowledge guys. Sad that this tread already started to be and its good to the moderators do something. If someone wants this kind of discussions, the internet are full of dedicated places to do it, but please not here.

 

 

 

 

Many people in this tread sadly not read the Forum rules: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/3-forum-rules-v10/

 

This is a discussion about political history.. in the Free Subject forum...  with some speculation on what ifs tossed in. There is nothing prohibiting this discussion from going forth other than it's participants. As long as the discussion remains civil and does not branch off into current affairs it will remain open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good find MiloMorai. Some absolutely staggering loss numbers in that. Truly hard to imagine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×