Degenerating post of Dday special - I've moved on

[ASLgrognard]

Did anyone see the disgracefully produced special (ran yesterday) on the Discovery channel. In addition to poor acting, the show would lead the historical novice to believe that the War in Europe was won because of the D-Day offensive.

BEWARE: If you read further, you will be bombarded by JWise's highjack of this thread. I've edited this post down to the bare bones, as I don't feel like arguing with minds that probably took the above show as biblical truth.

 

[sgtono]

Yes, I saw it and agree. Seems the "Cold War" will linger and linger.

Keith

 

[jwise]

Re: D-Day Remembrance Programming

Its sad to see that the myth continues to be perpetuated that the War was won on the Western Front, when in fact the majority of fighting/casualties occurred on the Eastern Front.

Without addressing the underlying question right now, these two statements of yours are completely unrelated.

If the majority of casualties occurred on the Eastern front, this does not, of course, mean the war was won there.

The vast majority of the casualties in the first World War occurred exactly during the period when the least progress was being made toward winning the war, after all...

 

[ASLgrognard]

Not to belabor a point

Post deleted out of boredom to your response.

 

[jwise]

Re: Not to belabor a point

The war was won on the Eastern Front. The Western Front was secondary, and certainly shortened the war. The War was lost by the Axis in 1941. It was just a matter of time after that.

Bald assertion without support.

Not only was the Rhine crossed before the Soviets reached Germany, there is little reason to believe that the East could not have held indefinitely as a single front.

 

[jwise]

Re: Not to belabor a point

The war was won on the Eastern Front. The Western Front was secondary, and certainly shortened the war. The War was lost by the Axis in 1941. It was just a matter of time after that.

My statement reflects back on the televised program that leads the casual viewer to believe that everything occuring (casualty and event) on the western front won the war. The German army was bled white on the eastern front, which was a factor that led to its loss. They are indeed related.

More to the point, measuring the importance of a battle merely by how many died is just silly. Far more Japanese died at Iwo Jima than at Midway, but the former was much more of a turning point in the war. Far more Germans died at Stalingrad than in Wacht am Rein, but the latter was much more of a turning point as well.

But, yes, it seems the cold war will go on -- and some people are desperate to breathe life into Stalin's propaganda sixty years after the fact.

 

[sgtono]

Wacht am Rhein was doomed from the start, it was a desparate attempt to play on what Hitler perceived as a way to make the western allies sue for peace. Wacht am Rhein did not have the logistics to win from the start. Stalingrad on the other hand was a stragetic victory. Both the Russians and Germans threw everything they had in to that battle. And they both had plenty to throw into it. Stalingrad was also a great tactical victory for the Russians.

IMHO, and with a great deal of historical support, the combination of Allied air supremacy to prevent the Germans from re-supplying the losses taken on the eastern front probably was more of a contribution to the "turning point of the war" than anything else.

"turning point of the war" for that matter could have been just as well the decision to invade Russia instead of taking the middle eastern oil reserves.

jwise I think your latters and formers are backwards.

Keith

 

[ASLgrognard]

The Cold War Continues in some people's minds obviously

Yawn, the JWise show continues, so I have deleted this post.

 

[teak]

I thought that everybody knew, that the war was decided on Finnish front.
The Soviet Union started to crumble as soon as Finns started their attack, and SU was saved only by the voluntary halt of finnish advance.
Not soon after the declaration of war by UK to Finland (6 of december 1941), their front against Germans in North Africa crumbled. They were only able to contain the breach at El Agheila, as Finns didn't pursuit actual warfare against them.
I think that this proves that USA was able to avoid major disasters only because they were not in war against us.
As you all know the advance from Normandy beaches were slow as long as the Finland was actively fighting the allies. The fate of Germany was sealed when we switched the sides to the allies and declared war against it on 18 of september 1944.

 

[teak]

damn...
I should have remembered... Not El Agheila, but El Alamein...

 

[jwise]

Re: The Cold War Continues in some people's minds obviously

Oh Please, Stalin's propaganda...that is just So Lame. Even Paul Carrell admitted that the war was lost on the eastern front - no wonder Germany lost - they had reds in the SS.

That's your source? That a historian who has spent his career focusing on the Eastern Front believes that the war was won there?

Anyhow, let's keep the question simple: what makes you believe that the Germans would have lost the Eastern front if it was a single-front war? Even assuming that the massive US aid to Russia was ongoing, even assuming that the strategic bombing campaign was ongoing, denying the Germans the oilfields of Ploesti, and disrupting transportation (if not as successfully disrupting production)?

Remember that Hitler continued to transfer forces away from the Eastern front long after D-Day to face what he and his planners saw as a greater threat, and remember that Germany's far more heavily fortified Western frontier was broken long before Soviet tanks reached German soil.

Stalin was a monster of a greater magnitude than Hitler. His only saving grace was that he allowed his generals limited operational control after his strategic blunders in 1941 and 1942. Don't even dare imply that I hold him in any regard other than for the monster he was.

Perhaps. But the idea that the war was `won in the East' is one that originated with his propaganda machine, and would not have any currency today were it not for that machine's supporters in the West. I do not doubt that you do not believe in this idea for these reasons, but you should look at its origins, nonetheless.

 

[jwise]

Wacht am Rhein was doomed from the start, it was a desparate attempt to play on what Hitler perceived as a way to make the western allies sue for peace. Wacht am Rhein did not have the logistics to win from the start. Stalingrad on the other hand was a stragetic victory. Both the Russians and Germans threw everything they had in to that battle. And they both had plenty to throw into it. Stalingrad was also a great tactical victory for the Russians.

It is always convenient to believe, after the fact, that some battle or another ``could not have turned out any other way''. In point of fact, every history I've read on the subject suggests that at least the `small solution' objectives of Wacht am Rhein were completely reachable, and had the reaction to the initial shock of the attack been worse, perhaps much more.

It is to the allies credit (and even moreso to the credit of the soldiers on the front in those crucial first days) that they reacted as well as they did. It is to their discredit that they threw away the opportunity provided when Wacht am Rhein faltered -- had Patton's solution to the bulge been adopted, the war might well have been won by the end of January, and none of us would be arguing which front it was won on.

In either case, keep in mind that the Germans themselves saw the West as a greater threat, and threw more and better resources into stopping advances there -- and still failed, even though their lines of supply were many times shorter than the lines from the beaches and ports the allies were forced to channel goods through. On the Eastern front, where the German supply lines were as long as the Russian, they gave way less quickly and less decisively, and were still pulling troops out of the Eastern line to send West very late in the war.

 

[sgtono]

jwise, you are conveniently intrepreting the history to fit your argument as well. By 1944, most of the Germans wanted the western front to be the first into Berlin. Hitler perceived the Americans as soft, his reason for believing the Ardennes offensive would work. There are plenty of sources that show the Germans felt Wacht am Rhein was a desperate gamble.

Because this topic has turned into a personal interpretation of the war, including my arguments. I do not wish to further continue, but will say that this is one war where a great deal of American history books are as heavily propagandized as others. The truth lies in a combination of all sides, as each side provided a "turning point" in the war.

Back to the original point, the Discovery channel show was not fair in some of its presentation of the facts.

Keith

 

[ASLgrognard]

I heartily agree with Ktodd

I too am leaving this thread. JWise, you've thoroughly lost the intent of the thread by your posts. I shall not comment here further or return to this thread.

 

[Bryan Holtby]

By the time the Allies landed in France the German army was but a shadow of its former self. Divisions were depleted by 20-50% unless they were the the top 6 SS divisions, tank divisions were often represented by 10 tanks instead of the nominal 100.

The backbreaker for the Germans came in the fall/winter of 42 and spring of 43. Between the collapse of the Africa armee and the liquidation of Stalingrad the German army lost an irreplacable amount of men and equipment. By the time of the Kursk battles the armoured units had regained full strength and the infantry div's were for the most part, 'fleshed out' again but the artillery pieces lost over the winter were never replaced

Had the Allies not invaded France and only held the line in Italy the Germans would still have been bled white by the immense material advantage the Russians enjoyed. Operation Bagration devastated the Germans, even if you tossed another 20-30 German divisions into that area they would have been wiped out. The Germans would have needed half of a million soldiers and 10-15 full strength tank divisions to stand a chance, not to mention the ludicrious orders of hitler.

Their can be no mistaking the huge benefit the air war had on the eastern front. It removed the majority of the German fighters from the eastern front and with the arrival of the Mustang doomed the Luftwaffe. The bombing campaign wasnt ineffective nor did it achieve the desired goal of destroying German industry until 45, and by then the writing was on the wall. It did destroy the transporation net and made redeployment by daylight a risky venture.

The end result is that the Russians tied up the majority of the German army and subsequently destroyed it. There is NO way the British, Americans, Canadians, Aussies etc. could have defeated the Germans (barring a few nukes of course) without the Russian army. The Russians could have won without the Western Allies landing in France or advancing up Italy. I'm not saying it would have been easy or as fast, but victory was inevitable.

 

[jwise]

The end result is that the Russians tied up the majority of the German army and subsequently destroyed it. There is NO way the British, Americans, Canadians, Aussies etc. could have defeated the Germans (barring a few nukes of course) without the Russian army. The Russians could have won without the Western Allies landing in France or advancing up Italy. I'm not saying it would have been easy or as fast, but victory was inevitable.

It is worth noting that the major Russian victories people keep citing in this thread, most notably Bagration, all occurred after a number of the strongest and best equipped divisions on the Eastern front had been stripped off and sent West. Even so, and even advancing more rapidly against now mostly second-line divisions, the Russians still didn't make major progress into Poland until the disruption caused by American and British divisions on German homeland soil began to be felt, and by the time they finished reducing the cities of Poland and moved on toward Berlin, the Western allies were accross the Rhine and rampaging through the German heartland.

 

[byouse]

There is NO way the British, Americans, Canadians, Aussies etc. could have defeated the Germans (barring a few nukes of course) without the Russian army.

I don't buy it.

There is no way Germany could have kept up with us economically in producing the material needed for war.

We would have beat them like we won the Cold War.

 

[jwise]

There is NO way the British, Americans, Canadians, Aussies etc. could have defeated the Germans (barring a few nukes of course) without the Russian army.

I don't buy it.

There is no way Germany could have kept up with us economically in producing the material needed for war.

We would have beat them like we won the Cold War.

This is absolutely clear as well -- note in particular that it was American industrial production and design, particularly in the area of trucks, that made possible the victories which the Russians did achieve.

 

[Bryan Holtby]

The supply of rubber, locomotives and rolling stock was more important than the trucks. The locomotives and rolling stock allowed Russian industry to focus on tanks and artillery. The trucks allowed the Russians to maintain pressure after the initial month of destruction and re-establish supply lines without rebuilding vast rail nets. Without the rubber the Russian industry would have had trouble. Even with the rubber provided by the US the Russians were chronically short, as were most countries.

There is no way Germany could have kept up with us economically in producing the material needed for war.

We would have beat them like we won the Cold War.

Heh, we arent talking about a stagnant eco war Brian, we are talking about out and out combat. But good point.

A large percentage of best equipped German divisions were in Romania as the German high command expected the Russians to head for the oil fields ASAP. The majority of German armoured units were there, somewhere in the area of 20 pz divisions......

I dont think any of the German units on the Russian front were second rate when you consider that there were 2 so called divisions of Russians in France as well as the majority of recently formed volksgrenadiers. At this point few divisions were fully equipped other than the SS, Panzer Lehr, etc. Most of the SS divisions were being refitted and not available for combat, same with the paratroopers. The only SS div that was up to full strength and combat ready for early June was the hitler youth, and they got chewed up fighting the Canadians early on.

the Russians still didn't make major progress into Poland until the disruption caused by American and British divisions on German homeland soil began to be felt

The Germans were on their heels long before the Allies arrived in France. The landings in Sicily certainly helped the Russian cause after Kursk, but I doubt the 10 or so divisions sent to Sicily would have drastically altered the outcome of the fall 43 battles in Russia.

Ummmmm, hate to break this to you but the Russians were at the edge of Warsaw by mid August or so and had half of Poland cleared out by the end of August before exhausting their supplies and outrunning their supply lines. At which point the Russians shifted the offensive to Romania and cleared out most of the Balkans by Christmas......before the western Allies crossed into Germany.

In this 6 month space of time the Germans lost in the area of 1 3/4 million soldiers killed and captured and 4,000 tanks. In the west the numbers were not small either, in the area of 600,000 kia and captured and 1500 tanks.

The ground war was won by the Russians. They absorbed the most punishment, suffered the most losses, inflicted the most casualties, covered the most ground and fought constantly for 4 years.

 

[jwise]

The ground war was won by the Russians. They absorbed the most punishment, suffered the most losses, inflicted the most casualties, covered the most ground and fought constantly for 4 years.

Again, this is a non sequitur, as I pointed out before. More specifically, to paraphrase Patton, it is not the man who dies for his country who wins the war, but the man who makes the other poor Bastard die for his.

No one is contesting that more Russians died in the war than Americans or Brits. To hold this up as evidence of who `won the war' for the allies is just silly however -- had the Russians lost the war outright, even more of them would have died.

The fact is, the Western allies reached the German heartland first, and they did it through the best units the Germans had to offer -- many of which had been moved away from the Eastern front to the front where the Germans knew their to be a greater threat.

Nor does it help to point out that the Russians turned some divisions aside to invade Romania -- the Russians had doing that for almost a decade before the war began.

And what of the fact that Russia fought `for four years'? Plenty of nations were fighting Germany when Russia was still at peace with them -- several of them fought the Russians too.

What I find more disturbing, by the way, is the tendency of a small core of ASL players to exaggerate the accomplishments of the Russians. Some of this, no doubt, comes from a harmless contrarianism, but there is no denying that some of it comes from the same sick romanticizing of history's villains that leads some other fringes of the ASL community to sit at home polishing their black SS MMC counters while collecting pack after pack of all-SS all-the-time scenarios with big Waffen SS symbols on them from a few TPP which shall remain nameless...