oh my...watch the movie Enemy at the Gates...it'll give you the gist of things, albeit hollywood style. the soviets communist mentality just threw away sooo much human life...they're main advantage was huge numerical advantage on the battlefield, but after the war, especially defending against the german invasion, their losses were staggering. i think they accounted for something like 40% of total Allied casualities in WWII.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,347
- 19,512
- 146
Our failure to take Saddam, and Baghdad, in '91 had little to nothing to do with the massively inflated casualty estimates thrown out by the news hacks.
It was due to the threats of our intenational support leaving us had we not stopped short. Specifically, the Saudis would have thrown us off their bases were we to have taken over and occupied Iraq.
ack, i'm no expert, thanks for putting me straight. I assumed that the US command was partly unwilling to throw away that many lives (maybe because the next year was an election year?).
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,347
- 19,512
- 146
The loss of life was sad, terrible, horrible, lamentable... but NOT STUPID. Before you use a word like "stupid" about the men who planned, coordinated, and carried out the greatest invasion in history, take a bit of time to actually LEARN about it.
Scouzer
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2001
- 10,358
- 5
- 0
Well I can't really give you statistics as the Russians weren't really good at that...but the Russians lost an ungodly amount of people in the course of the war. Try 20+ million, including civilians. I believe it's far higher, but I don't want to exagerate it and end up being wrong. They took the brunt of the German military for 1941-1945 (Yes, even in the end of the war).
The Germans had no mercy. They raped their women, killed civilians without mercy, burned villages to the ground. Disgusting. The Russians did it back to the Germans though.
If you went to an Eastern Front prison camp, you'd be very lucky to survive. Conditions were terrible.
The Western Front was a comparitively 'civilized' war.
As someone else mentioned, look at Enemy at the Gates. Read the book...but it might be too much for you. Some of it...is pretty disgusting.
One part I remember... a doctor having to amputate a soldier's leg with paper scissors, no anesthetic, nothing. Disgusting. Now that bothers me.
the worst part imo was the soviet propaganda machine that was supposed to inspire the troops, but really had no effect. I don't deny for a second that thousands of russians died charging the enemy with no weapon, like in the opening scenes of the movie. mind numbing, just boggles the mind.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
the part at the begining where they hand 5 bullets to every man and a rifle to every other man and instructions to the others to pick up the gun when the guy in front of you dies... plus being shot by the non-coms for withdrawing instead of advancing...
as for the end of the war, the germans threw everything at the US and UK forces, hitler wanted stalin in control of europe. at least, that was according to my eastern european under the soviet bloc professor. maybe hes just wrong.
hat tip to my elders 
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,347
- 19,512
- 146
Yes, they did. I explained their mistakes in my post above.
But let me add to that that the weather was crappy, but they would have had to have waited months to get the right tide/moon/time condtions again. That would have been unacceptable, because they wanted the entire spring and summer to push the Germans back into Germany... and not get stuck in a long winter battle like they ended up in anyhow during the winter of '44-'45.
Did you read the thread at all? It has been noted many times that battleship shelled the coastline; that method was not very effective.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
I believe he is, although I can't claim to have been there, but evertyhing that I have been told is exactly the oppsite -- the Germans had (for centuries IIRC) a deep seated fear of a Russian takeover of Germany, they threw everything they had into the Battle of Berlin. The Battle was purely suicide, but they wanted to slow the Soviets down so more of post war Germany would be in the hands of the west. I believe that the battle of Berlin was the largest tank battle in history.
I was also told that the western allies stopped at the River Elba (I think, the specifics are a bit fuzzy, honestly) which was the agreed meeting point between the two forces (westerners and soviets). I understand that the western allies could have easily taken another large chunk of Germany (absolutely noone was facing us, but we stopped on the line we had agreed to). I believe that we sat there for a week waiting for the Russians to get to the meeting point.
Further, I believe that large numbers of German scientists and troops fled to allied lines to surrender to us because they feared what the Russians would do to them in revenge for the atrocities comitted on the eastern front. :disgust:
Now, I can't say that your history teacher was incorrect, as the parts of this that I got from mine could have been clouded too, but I am more suspicious of the accuracy of the statements of someone who was educated in the Soviet block -- where they not only had much propoganda for 40 years, but they called WWII the "Great Patriotic War"
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
My understanding was that Wernher von Braun and the Peenemunde rocket scientists specifically wanted to surrender to the Americans; the SS was ordered to execute them, they didn't want to surrender to the Soviets, and no one else was in a position to afford to carry on a rocketry program.
The Germans, believe it or not, had a space program in its infancy, and ICBM technology on the drawing board.
The Germans lost WWII for several reasons: Hitler himself was an incompetent military general, and often countermanded the recommendations of his generals. His invasion of the Soviet Union (just in time for winter!) sapped forces that would have effectively held off the Allies in the west. They had a chronic shortage of fuel, and while they were technologically superior to the Allies and had superior armor, they lacked the industrial production capacity to keep up with the United States (particularly later in the war). Their rocketry programs (the V1 and V2 programs) were never able to be used to support German tactics; they were pure terror weapons with little military value, and thus their funding and support detracted from the war effort. The same with the effort put into the enormous artillery piece, "Gustav".
The Allies, once production ramped up, were able to field thousands and thousands of Sherman tanks and other hardware. Allied radar was superior to German radar. The Allies used significantly better artillery fire control. The Allies, once they were able to field enough destroyers, were very effective in devising and implementing tactics to counter the U-boat wolf packs.
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
Domestic support was indeed there, though paradoxically, no one really knew that until war actually broke out. I seem to recall during the Desert Shield buildup, the media would report on scattered anti-war protests and there was much talk of the Vietnam issues, but once the bombing campaign started, American flags popped up everywhere.
WTF is peoples problems. They guy is just asking some questions, why do some individuals feel they should act like sh!theads. I don't see why, that if you have information to contribute you have to submit it with such an attitude. If you have a problem with MrDudeman asking questions about war, if it offends you, then take a hike.
911paramedic
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2002
- 9,448
- 1
- 76
Why did we decide to take the beach? Because we HAD to.
Why did we have to? Only viable way to get troops and supplies into the area.
Why take it that way? It was the only way to do it back then.
Why not use special forces? Rangers were the only special forces (I believe) and they were new.
Why not use bombers? They were very slow moving targets among other things, no smart bombs, needed visual for targeting.
Did we pay a huge price? Yes.
Did we secure the beach and eventually win the war? Yes.
Does war include people dying? Yes.
Was it a horrible price to pay? Yes, but think of all the people we helped to save, not to mention the downfall of the Third Reich.
What I am trying to say is, we had to do it that way, there was no other viable option. War back then was face to face, no smart bombs and guided missles. If you look Desert Storm, the Iraqi soldiers died like that but you never saw it because we used smart bombs and heavy infantry. War is not a nice place to be, and people die.
If you ask me the people that stormed the beach and fought in WW2 were some of the bravest men around.
Why did we have to? Only viable way to get troops and supplies into the area.
Why take it that way? It was the only way to do it back then.
Why not use special forces? Rangers were the only special forces (I believe) and they were new.
Why not use bombers? They were very slow moving targets among other things, no smart bombs, needed visual for targeting.
Did we pay a huge price? Yes.
Did we secure the beach and eventually win the war? Yes.
Does war include people dying? Yes.
Was it a horrible price to pay? Yes, but think of all the people we helped to save, not to mention the downfall of the Third Reich.
What I am trying to say is, we had to do it that way, there was no other viable option. War back then was face to face, no smart bombs and guided missles. If you look Desert Storm, the Iraqi soldiers died like that but you never saw it because we used smart bombs and heavy infantry. War is not a nice place to be, and people die.
If you ask me the people that stormed the beach and fought in WW2 were some of the bravest men around.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter