Mandalorians resemble...

[Objulen]

No, seriously. The commonly accepted number of civilian casualties for the Eastern Front in World War II is between 20 and 30 million. Read the beginning of this article.

 

Russia lost a massive numbers of people in WWII -- Stalin sacrificed soldiers and civilians like fodder, and the Nazi ideals led to cruel treatment of Slavic peoples, who they considered to be subhuman; the SS had no qualms about butchering Russians as necessary, though they often went for Jews first, as Slavs were "good enough" for slave labor.

[hobbitfeet]

In the middle ages they have still been an advanced and exemplary tolerant civilization (="civilized").

But today? I wouldn't say so...

Yes modern inhabitants of Iraq have nothing common with ancient Babylonians.

But still Iraq is full of 6000 years old artifacts and during the war many priceless

artifacts were destroyed by invading vandals from US Army (ex. first musical instrument in the world) and later Babylon itself was damaged by american

soldiers and polish dogs who serve them.

 

Americans are modern barbarians without history and significant cultural achievements. Nations of Asia nad Europe are superior to them in every aspect

except military. Money and rockets doesn't make you civilized.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats not what I read, or saw on the tv... As far as I'm aware, most of the damage (and theft) of the babylonian artifacts was done by Iraqi looters. If the American soldiers were guilty of anything in this regard, it was mostly negligence in allowing this to occur... but then they pretty much had their hands full at this time. Also while I don't condone American heavy handedness, describing them as cultureless barbarians without history seems unfair to me... I'm British, and I have American courage and sacrifice to thank for the fact that myself and the rest of Europe aren't speaking German right now.

[Nur Ab Sal]

You have to thank Red Army becouse it's Russia that crushed Hitler. Western Allies did nothing until Stalin rolled back Wehrmacht and broken their spine at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk... 80% of german forces fought in the East. Will you

westerners ever learn that your part in that war was insignificant? Without Russia's

iron fist Hitler would turn all his forces to the west and conquer you. Angloamericans met heavy resistance after 1944 in the western front although they had giant advantage in planes, tanks and men and were fighting inferior wehrtmacht units. Russians in the same time were fighting with best and most deadly german units. And Germans were even able to kick your ass in Ardennes despite your mighty advantage!

 

Remember for all times: this war was mainly between Russians and Germans

statistics say so and so say sources. Western allies fought in stupid anglosaxon movies that greatly exagerrated their role.

[Jellybelly]

"This war was mainly between Russians and Germans"

That's about the stupidest thing I've heard. The Russians have always been lucky when under attack, the winters killed more men than their bullets did. WWII was no exception. I'm not one to deny the important role of the Russians during that war, but you go to the other end of the spectrum and say that what the British and Americans did was insignificant. That's ridiculous.

 

And what's with the glorifying of Stalin? That bastard killed millions upon millions of his own people.

[KOTORFanactic]

You have to thank Red Army becouse it's Russia that crushed Hitler. Western Allies did nothing until Stalin rolled back Wehrmacht and broken their spine at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk... 80% of german forces fought in the East. Will you

westerners ever learn that your part in that war was insignificant? Without Russia's

iron fist Hitler would turn all his forces to the west and conquer you. Angloamericans met heavy resistance after 1944 in the western front although they had giant advantage in planes, tanks and men and were fighting inferior wehrtmacht units. Russians in the same time were fighting with best and most deadly german units. And Germans were even able to kick your ass in Ardennes despite your mighty advantage!

 

Remember for all times: this war was mainly between Russians and Germans

statistics say so and so say sources. Western allies fought in stupid anglosaxon movies that greatly exagerrated their role

 

"This war was mainly between Russians and Germans"

That's about the stupidest thing I've heard. The Russians have always been lucky when under attack, the winters killed more men than their bullets did. WWII was no exception. I'm not one to deny the important role of the Russians during that war, but you go to the other end of the spectrum and say that what the British and Americans did was insignificant. That's ridiculous.

 

And what's with the glorifying of Stalin? That bastard killed millions upon millions of his own people.

Agreed 100% JellyBaby.

You seem to forget Nur Ab Sal, that without British and American resources supplied to Russia in the early years (1941/42) the Russians would of had a much tougher time. Hell, maybe even lost Moscow.

Also, didn't the Russians have a huge advantage in numbers and technology during 1943-45, much like the allies, yet until D-Day, they were having an overly tough time. Yes, the Russians were facing the best German forces, but the Allies had to contend with some impressive German forces themselves.

 

Nur Ab Sal says: " Without Russia's iron fist Hitler would turn all his forces to the west and conquer you."

I say, without the Allies, Hitler could have turned all his forces on Russia, and possibly conquered it. You'd have to factor in other things to improve the German army (like winter clothing), but they could have done it, had the Allies not been involved.

 

Doesn't it work both ways?

The Anglo-American forces tied down troops before D-Day even began, what with the Atlantic Wall, Africa, and Italy. Imagne how many troops the Russians would have faced if the Anglo-American forces didn't do all this.

Remember they Battle of the Bulge? That tied down a significant amount of German forces in that German offensive in the winter of 1944.

By removing Italy, they took away Germanys main ally. By constantly threatening invasion from 1943-44, the Allies made Hitler concentrate more and more forces on the Atlantic Wall, forces that could of been used on the Eastern Front.

 

By taking France, and Italy, the Allies also removed resource and production centres for Germany.

And imagine how much tougher Germany wold have been without allied bombing. I don't condone bombing entire cities to rubble, but it did take away large production centres.

 

To be honest Nur Ab Sal, I think you are overhyping Russia's roll in WW2, and downplaying the Allies roll.

[jedipodo]

You have to thank Red Army becouse it's Russia that crushed Hitler. Western Allies did nothing until Stalin rolled back Wehrmacht and broken their spine at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk... 80% of german forces fought in the East. Will you

westerners ever learn that your part in that war was insignificant? Without Russia's

iron fist Hitler would turn all his forces to the west and conquer you. Angloamericans met heavy resistance after 1944 in the western front although they had giant advantage in planes, tanks and men and were fighting inferior wehrtmacht units. Russians in the same time were fighting with best and most deadly german units. And Germans were even able to kick your ass in Ardennes despite your mighty advantage!

 

Remember for all times: this war was mainly between Russians and Germans

statistics say so and so say sources. Western allies fought in stupid anglosaxon movies that greatly exagerrated their role.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The U.S. foreign policy is "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

They supported the Soviet Union massively. They funded them, sold them millions of U.S. Jeeps and even many Soviet tanks had American mounting.

 

Have you never wondered how they could afford this all of a sudden when they were near devastation?

 

After WWII the numbers of civilian casualties at the east front caused by the German attack had been given by the Soviet Union. This have been several million. Later they had to be corrected, because it became clear that many of them died by Stalin's political cleansing. So to say, Soviet's dirty secret.

[jedipodo]

(...)

And imagine how much tougher Germany wold have been without allied bombing. I don't condone bombing entire cities to rubble, but it did take away large production centres.

(...)

 

In theory it should, but this bombing didn't effect what you said. They didn't hit most of the production centres. Germany's reconstruction mainly was made up of rebuilding the devastated city centers.

[Christopher]

Hey guys - first post! I voted Spartans

[Nur Ab Sal]

The U.S. foreign policy is "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

They supported the Soviet Union massively. They funded them, sold them millions of U.S. Jeeps and even many Soviet tanks had American mounting.

 

Have you never wondered how they could afford this all of a sudden when they were near devastation?

 

After WWII the numbers of civilian casualties at the east front caused by the German attack had been given by the Soviet Union. This have been several million. Later they had to be corrected, because it became clear that many of them died by Stalin's political cleansing. So to say, Soviet's dirty secret.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

According to the historians Soviet Union produced 90% of its war equipment alone. I'm sorry but allied support was a small percent of total soviet material potential that went to Red Army. USSR had giant industry on Ural and giant reserves of oil, coal, steel. Western support meant nothing - it only improved situation a little bit. Check what scientist are saying. USSR would win this war anyway becouse had massive population and great areas of land. Even if Western Allies remained neutral and Hitler threw those 20% of forces that were fighting with USA it wouldnt change much. This 20% of auxiliary wehrmacht that caused so much trouble sissy us army wouldnt stand a match for asiatic soviet hordes that fought with ferocious rage.

[Jellybelly]

That's propaganda you're spewing out. The Red Army didn't fight in a sensible way. They threw away their manpower completely without regard for human life, and displayed extremely poor tactical skill. They went from loss to loss against the Germans, until changes were introduced.

 

You are quick to dismiss the help given from the UK and the US. This shows how lacking in seriousity you are when dealing with history. Stalin turned Russia entirely into a war factory, that's true, but Russia would have collapsed completely if it hadn't been for the UK and US supplying food and raw materials. In fact, a workers only hope for food was to show up at the factories to make weapons, as Stalin had changed the entire industry into what he called "a single armed camp". Yes, the Red Army was mostly self-supplied when it comes to weapons, but that wouldn't have been possible if it hadn't been for the help received from the West.

 

I don't know why you keep giving Stalin credit for the success of the Russian army. The Red Army would not have had anything near the amount of success it had in the latter stages of the war, if it hadn't been for Stalin deciding to relinquish much of his military power to General Georgi Zhukov. Of course, after this, the Red Army was reformed and took to using new fighting methods, using propaganda and misinformation against their enemies, using the Air force for the resource that it was and so on.

 

The people of the Soviet Union are to have their share of the credit as well. Without their total-war mobilization (into which they were often terrorized) the victory against the Germans wouldn't have been possible at all.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The red army was all abouy attrition. If it took a million soviets to kill 100,000 germans, that was what they did.

 

Even the much lauded battle of kursk shows the same machine like mentality.

[Nur Ab Sal]

That doesn't sound very convincing. There was no way for Hitler to win with USSR

with or without western interference. Silly carpet bombings and chocolate-demanding us soldiers only quickened the way but their effectiveness is pathetic if you see that auxiliary units that consisted 20% of wehrmacht stopped their advance despite allied total domination and thanks to russkies anglosaxons weren't totally annihilated. Only Poles and Czehs were effective in entire western

army. And the fact that soviets didn't care about losses means nothing. They were effective more than westeners. FIN

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That doesn't sound very convincing. There was no way for Hitler to win with USSR

with or without western interference. Silly carpet bombings and chocolate-demanding us soldiers only quickened the way but their effectiveness is pathetic if you see that auxiliary units that consisted 20% of wehrmacht stopped their advance despite allied total domination and thanks to russkies anglosaxons weren't totally annihilated. Only Poles and Czehs were effective in entire western

army. And the fact that soviets didn't care about losses means nothing. They were effective more than westeners. FIN

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It meant that Stalin cared as little for his own people as he did for the germans. He probably killed more russians than the gerams did as well.

 

Just what history did they teach you at school anyway...

[Jellybelly]

More effective than the westerners? That's a bold statement. I wouldn't call it effective to turn your entire country into a war factory. Of course, it helped the war effort, but without the help from the UK and US, the workers in that war factory wouldn't have eaten. What happens to people who don't eat? They usually die. Which happened to a lot of Soviets. The Soviets suffered massive losses, and we all know that the Russian officers shot down their own soldiers whenever they showed the slightest hesitation. People were run against the enemy without weapons in their hands. Stalin wasted his own people.

 

We all know how Russia turned out after the war. And how it's now. It's a mafia-ridden cesspit, looking more like a third world country in some respects, like a police state in others. There's a ridiculously high suicide rate in the conscription-based military. They even use sharp ammunition when practicing, resulting in a 5-10% calculated loss. That's, you know, acceptable. Seems to me the Russians have no respect or regard for human life.

 

Which probably helped them greatly during the war.

 

As well, one shouldn't forget that Hitler was a useless general, and towards the end of the war, he pretty much overruled the generals' advice every chance he got. Remember the fiasco at Stalingrad.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

As well, one shouldn't forget that Hitler was a useless general, and towards the end of the war, he pretty much overruled the generals' advice every chance he got. Remember the fiasco at Stalingrad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He was suffering from a number of acute medical conditions at that point.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If you study the history of the Second World War in a British school, the decisive battles were El Alamein and the Battle of Britain. If you study in a Russian school, probably Stalingrad is presented as decisive' and the US probably focuses more on Okinawa and the war in the east, which was barely mentioned in my (UK) textbooks. Every country teaches its children a biased version of history, though some are more guilty of open propagandising than others. They don't lie; they don't need to. They just give prominence to facts that support their version.

 

Historians are (or should be) wary of speculating on what would have happened if X hadn't happened and so on. We don't know for sure if Germany could have won on either the Western or Eastern fronts alone, if Hitler hadn't chosen to have two fronts simultaneously. Russia certainly wasn't winning the war easily - Stalin was desperate for the Allies to invade France, and furious with Churchill and Roosevelt for delaying.

 

I'm not well informed about Russia's part in the war, so I don't know how big an impact Stalin's viciousness had on strategies and casualties. But I know that there were massive casualties in the D-Day landings, for example. People shouldn't just assume that losses on our side were due to 'unavoidable circumstance, the realities of war' etc., while losses on the other side were because 'the leaders were vicious, they don't respect life the way we do.'

[Ivan the Terrible]

Anyone else astonished this thread hasn't been closed yet?

[Fionavar]

Anyone else astonished this thread hasn't been closed yet?

 

Well that's a good point ... hey who's running this joint anyways?

 

FLoSD.OBE