Beautiful war . . .

Forum » Beenos Trumpet » Beautiful war . . .

Jul 21, 2020, 07:31

No, it's not a Kings of Leon song, it's Bozo. 


In his Fox interview with Chris Wallace, Bozo says "We won two world wars, two world wars, beautiful world wars . . ."


"Beautiful" world wars?


Over 100 million people dying is "beautiful"?


Huh?



Jul 21, 2020, 09:31

Mustard Gas looks pretty I guess.

I dislike it when any nation says we won the war without acknowledging their allies, the Entente and Allied powers respectively won the two world wars.


Jul 21, 2020, 09:47

Or perhaps he's talking about the tiny matter of the result of the war.

The thing that kept 100 million deaths from being 200 or 300 million.

Saving lives is always beautiful. 

Unless you suffer from TDS.

Jul 21, 2020, 09:56

I agree with you Stav. Americans have watched too many Hollywood movies and now firmly believe they won those wars single handed.

Truth is, America took a long time to join WW2 and only did so when their ships were attacked at Pearl Harbour. Up until that point they were happy to watch as the brave RAF pilots kept the Luftwaffe at bay while hanging on by a fingernail. That's when the war was won and lost.

Jul 21, 2020, 10:26

Well I could never criticize the American's for trying to keep out of the wars, after all my own country didn't participate in WW2 and I wouldn't belittle the effort any of the nations that fought in the wars.

The Americans played their part and did the vast bulk of the heavy lifting in the Pacific theater of WW2 and land lease was crucial to both the Soviets and British in Europe.

The war wasn't won during the Battle of Britain either, the war in Europe was primarily decided on the Eastern front where the German army was ground down in the absolutely titanic battles that occurred there.

From what we know now due to the disparity of naval power between the Great Britain and Germany the Germans even had they won the Battle of Britain and won air supremacy, they where not capable of successfully invading the UK. The German navy was simply too small particularly after its mauling in Norway to protect an invasion fleet and in pretty much an scenario where the Germans could of invaded the UK there would of no way they could have successfully reinforced and supplied the invasion force once it landed in the UK. Once the landing sites where identified the Royal Navy would just steamed down in force and wrecked the invasion fleet. This was not to say Britain did not believe it was fighting for its survival at the time, they didn't know back then what we know now.

What should also be noted is the effectiveness of the British blockade on Germany, which crippled its oil supply, that significantly affected Germany's ability to mechanize and wage war in general.

Jul 21, 2020, 11:49

Stav, I still believe that the Battle of Britain was a very close call and if it had gone the other way then the outcome of the war would have been significantly different . . . but while we can argue about whether the turning point in the war was the Battle of Britain, Operation Barbarossa, the Battle of Stalingrad, the entry of the USA after Pearl Harbour or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki; one thing I'm sure we can agree on is that it wasn't a "beautiful" war.

World War 1 may not have been fought on the same scale and may have had a lot less total casualties but the intensity of the fighting and the conditions were even less "beautiful" than WW2. 

Jul 21, 2020, 12:35

Well the Battle of Britain was a close run battle, but pretty much every military historian is in agreement that Germans would not have been able to successfully invade the UK in the short to medium term it was simply beyond their naval and air capabilities to protect and supply any invading force and addressing a naval imbalance takes years to do so. Perhaps had they won the Battle of Britain, the UK might have sued for peace but with Churchill in charge I think that's somewhat unlikely.

There is not really much argument to be had, the Eastern Front from 41-45 was the most important theater and its where the outcome of the war in Europe was determined.

Pearl Harbor obviously started the Pacific war and doomed Japan who literally had no chance of beating the US, but it might not necessarily involved America into the European war. That was down to Germany and Italy declaring war on the US.

While you can salute the bravery of your soldiers and be proud of your nations accomplishments I don't think war can ever be called beautiful.

And also yes the way World War 1 was fought was utterly horrendous. It also seems like a far more pointless war than the WW2.

Jul 21, 2020, 16:04

The small mindedness of the Left. Trump was obviously referring to the liberation of Stalingrad, Paris and all the other cities and countries under the yoke of the Axis.


As for what won the war. It was the American lifeline to the U.K. carried in 1200 Norwegian vessels denied to the Germans .....along with the pilots and the threat of the navy  that saved Britain.


The other major event was the Battle of Kursk which settled the Russian conflict, after which the result was inevitable. 


You chaps have watched too many Pom movies....they survived bravely but had little positive effect on the outcome beyond that. Hell Monty extended the War by half a year by deciding to not secure the approaches to Antwerp....and then there was Market Garden. Absent the US and Russia they would  have been lost.

Jul 21, 2020, 18:40

The utter tastelessness of the right, describing the two most devastating conflicts in human history as beautiful.

As for the liberation of Stalingrad...I didn't know the US was involved. My hole he was referring to Stalingrad, he's probably never even heard of it.

No one thing won the war, but the largest overall contribution to wining the war in Europe was made by the Soviets. Had it not been for the losses the German sustained on the eastern front its unlikely the Americans and the British could have liberated Western and Central Europe without having to use nuclear weapons. They would have been facing millions more soldier's in addition to thousands more tanks and aircraft.

The Germans had in all likelihood lost the war well before Kursk. They probably had already lost any realistic prospect of victory when Barbarossa failed back in 41.

As for the Brits barely surviving, that's a misconception. The U-Boats never really came that close to actually starving them out even before the US entered the war and as I said the Germans never realistically had a chance to successfully invade the UK. Victory for the Germans in North Africa would not have been fatal to the UK either.

Its true to say the British could not have defeated Germany alone, but to say they had little positive effect is complete crap. The U-Boat building programmer designed specifically to knock the UK out of the war consumed considerable resources the Germans could have used elsewhere. The blockade of Germany enforced by the Royal Navy significantly contributed to Germany's severe oil shortages throughout the war,.The Battle of Britain reduced the Luftwaffe strength by a third before it went into Operation Barbarossa, the battle for Africa and in the Mediterranean theater tied down a significant portion of the Luftwaffe away from the Germans primary theater of operations and the African campaign was very costly to the Germans in terms of resources particular oil. They routed the Italians on numerous occasions and achieved a noteable victory at El Alamein. They wisely counseled the Americans not to attempt a cross channel invasion in 1942-1943 before they where ready. Without Britain where would of been no commonwealth forces which provided significant manpower to the allies. Without the Commonwealth there would have no critical important lessons learned for D-Day at Dieppe. It was the British that cracked enigma. Its the British that did the heavy lifting  by tying down all the German panzer divisions at Caen enabling the Americans to break out of Normandy. The British just surviving alone provided the allies with the staging area to invade Europe.

The US may have ended up as the senior partner in the end but to say Britain had little positive effect on the war is just insulting and disrespectful to your allies.

The rights and wrongs of Operation Market Garden can be debated till the cows come home, but before you pin the blame entirely on Monty then it could be argued that the decision of General Gavin the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division not to prioritize capturing the bridge at Nijmegen (the sole reason the 82nd Airborne was there in the first place) to focus on taking up defensive position around his landing zone to fend off a counter attack from 1,000 phantom panzers was arguably the single biggest reason Market Garden failed and had he taken the bridge Market Garden may well have succeeded.




Jul 21, 2020, 19:09

Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon Bonaparte by attacking Russia during winter. The Russians just retreat and burn everything in their wake. It was obvious by this stage Hitler had lost the plot. 


If he had just focussed on attacking one country at a time and avoided Russia, the Germans could potentially have conquered all of Europe. 

Jul 21, 2020, 19:59

Neither Napoleon or Hitler attacked Russia during the winter, both invasions where launched in summer. Both invasions failed to defeat Russia before winter kicked in.

However also a misconception that the Russian winter caused the German invasion to fail. That's not true either. The Russian's had stopped the Germans before winter had fully kicked in.

The scorched earth policy certainly didn't help the German but it wasn't the primary reason the invasion failed. Was more to do with the size of Russia,  Russia's greater manpower reserves, its greater oil reserves and its ability to relocate its industry to places out of reach to the Germans.

Hitler hadn't lost the plot by the time he invaded Russia, that came a few years later. Many people believed at the time that the USSR was doomed when the Germans invaded, including senior people in the US government.

Part of the reason both Napoleon and Hitler invaded Russia was the belief that by eliminating Russia, Britain's last continental ally they would force Britain to come to peace terms and cut out the need for a messy naval invasion. Hitler was actually something of an Anglophile and greatly respected them and never really wanted war with Britain. He actually hoped for an alliance between Germany and the British Empire and together (long after he was dead) hoped they would go on conquer the US together.

He didn't have much option either. His goal for ideological reasons was always the conquest of Russia. He didn't have the means to attack Britain or the British Empire directly, to do some would of taken years to build up the naval power required. He couldn't afford the time needed as Russia would of been simply able to build up its strength and his window of opportunity to conquer Russia would of been gone forever.


Jul 21, 2020, 21:33

"The US President Donald Trump once again opposed the renaming of military bases named after generals of the Confederacy.


“Fort Bragg,” “Fort Robert Lee” – forts had these names for a long time, decades. I don’t care what the military says. I have to make a decision. No one even knows who General Bragg is. And what will we call him? Let’s call him “Reverend Sharpton” (a well-known black preacher in the United States, al Sharpton)? We won two world wars, two world wars, two beautiful world wars, cruel and terrible, and we won them from “Fort Bragg,” we won them from all these forts. And now they want to get rid of these names. I am against it,” he said in an interview with Fox News

Jul 21, 2020, 21:50

It doesn't matter that he acknowledged the world wars as cruel and terrible, its utterly bizarre he referred to them as beautiful. Its not at all an appropriate way to describe the two world wars

Image saying that to a Jewish person.

As for the rest of his quote, if no one who's who General Bragg is, then why is there a statue of him?

I had assume some of the confederate generals who these bases where named after were being honored because like Robert E Lee  they where considered brilliant military leaders as opposed to being named after them to glorify the confederacy, but reading up on it, some of these confederate leaders with bases named after them where not considered great battlefield commanders and some where actually quite incompetent. Bragg is one of them.


Jul 21, 2020, 22:37

Anger you really see the world in simple terms.....take your comment about the Russians stopping the Germans before winter. Not really true, the Germans were advancing till into December. And that advance in itself was effected by atrocious weather in October and November which turned everything into a mud bath. 

The Germans had lost the war before Kursk? Nonsense Kursk could have gone either way and it was pivotal....this sums it up well:



Every battle in a war is significant, but some truly redefine the entire conflict. In this lesson, we'll examine the Battle of Kursk and see why it was such a significant moment in World War II.

The Battle of Kursk

What does it take to turn the tides in a war? Often, it comes down to one pivotal battle. What it takes to win that battle, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely. For the first part of World War II, Germany commanded pretty clear control. Most battles in these first years were defined by Germany on the offense and everybody else playing defense. However, in each of the fronts that Germany fought, eventually this changed. On the Russian front, the pivotal battle most responsible for turning the tides was the Battle of Kursk.


......


Most of the other material in your post is also delusional...reflecting a very parochial view of the War.

Jul 21, 2020, 22:56

This from Brittanica may help you get a basic understanding Anger, but to be honest, I’m not optimistic:


Bock’s renewed advance began on October 2, 1941. Its prospects looked bright when Bock’s armies brought off a great encirclement around Vyazma, where 600,000 more Soviet troops were captured. That left the Germans momentarily with an almost clear path to Moscow. But the Vyazma battle was not completed until late October; the German troops were tired; the country became a morass as the weather got worse; and fresh Soviet forces appeared in the Germans’ path as they plodded slowly forward. Some of the German generals wanted to break off the offensive and to take up a suitable winter line. But Bock wanted to press on, believing that the Soviets were on the verge of collapse, while Brauchitsch and Halder tended to agree with his view. As that also accorded with Hitler’s desire, he made no objection. The temptation of Moscow, now so close in front of their eyes, was too great for any of the topmost leaders to resist. On December 2 a further effort was launched, and some German detachments penetrated into the suburbs of Moscow; however, the advance as a whole was held up in the forests covering the capital. The stemming of this last phase of the great German offensive was partly due to the effects of the Russian winter, the subzero temperatures of which were the most severe in several decades. In October and November a wave of frostbite cases had decimated the ill-clad German troops, for whom provisions of winter clothing had not been made, while the icy cold paralyzed the Germans’ mechanized transport, tanks, artillery, and aircraft. The Soviets, by contrast, were well clad and tended to fight more effectively in winter than did the Germans. 

Jul 22, 2020, 00:39

I won't be too critical of you this time Mozart because the belief that the Russian winter was the primary factor in the German defeat in 1941 is still widely held among the general public but its a view no longer held by military historians and authors who have studied the Eastern Front.

It mostly an excuse created by the German generals to explain their defeat at the hands of the Russians.

Barbarossa failed for several reasons but simplifying it the primary reason Barbarossa failed was the Germans assumed the USSR/Red Army would collapse within a few weeks to months of fighting, that didn't happen and Germans didn't have he resources to cope. The Red Army inflicted heavy casualties on the Germans best units before the Russian winter kicked in and the German logistics system couldn't cope with the vastness of the USSR.

"The Germans had lost the war before Kursk? Nonsense Kursk could have gone either way and it was pivotal....this sums it up well:"

Kursk wasn't never even close to a German victory. It was never going to be. Once Russia failed to capitulate quickly in 1941 the Germans where arguable done for and if they had a tiny chance of winning in 1942 it was gone when they failed to take the Caucasus oilfields. By 1943 the Germans were dead men walking.

Even had the Germans won at Kursk, it wasn't intended as a war winning battle. The Germans planned the battle in order to destroy the Kursk Salient so they could neutralize the Red Army as a threat for the remainder of 1943 and shorten the line on the eastern front to transfer troops to the west. But its difficulty to see that making much difference other than extend the war by a few months.

As for saying my view is simplistic and then going on to quote an article from Brittanica that's quiet simply just LOL.





Jul 22, 2020, 01:31

Your views are your views...everybody else believes weather played a major role. Another factor you miss is the Nazi  atrocities towards the locals, strengthened Russian resolve. 

Moscow seemingly lay open to a German advance, but at this point Russian weather intervened with heavy rains that turned the roads into morasses. The frosts of November solidified the mud, so that the drive could resume. Despite the lateness of the season and the fact that further advances would leave their troops with no winter clothes or supply dumps for the winter, the generals urged Hitler to continue. The Germans struggled to the gates of Moscow where Soviet counterattacks stopped them in early December. In desperate conditions, they conducted a slow retreat as Soviet attacks threatened to envelop much of their forces in a defeat as disastrous as that which befell Napoleon’s Grand Army in 1812. In the end the Soviets overreached, and the Germans restored a semblance of order to the front; the spring thaw in March 1942 brought operations to a halt. But Barbarossa had failed, and Nazi Germany confronted a two-front war that it could not win.

WILLIAMSON MURRAY

The Reader’s Companion to Military History. Edited by Robert Cowley and Geoffrey Parker. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Jul 22, 2020, 01:51

As for Kursk....the war with Russia was very much undecided before Kursk.....in 1943 Russia had retaken the Ukraine, but suffered a major loss at Karkhof. 

At Kursk so many troops and so much material was committed that a clear victory by either side would have changed the nature of the conflict for the rest of 43. As it transpired an inconclusive result with massive losses was less devastating to Russia. And that decided the war. Here are some supporting opinions:


The Battle of Kursk was the last major offensive they launched in Russia. The material damage done to the German Army was massive. The campaign was a strategic Soviet success, despite the fact that the suffered more casualties. For the first time, a major German offensive had been stopped before achieving a breakthrough[22]. The defeat at Kursk was to prove in many ways more decisive than Stalingrad. Winston Churchill, argued that the defeat at Kursk ‘heralded the downfall of the German army on the Eastern Front’[23]

Conclusion

The Battle of Kursk was a turning point in the war on the Eastern Front. The Germans had failed to reach their objectives and they had suffered huge losses. The German air force after the battle, began to lose the control of the skies. After Kursk the Germans in the East were on the defensive. They had lost the battle for several reasons, overoptimistic planning, a failure to appreciate that the Soviet air force had improved and they underestimated the Soviet defenses around Kursk. Significantly, they also believed that their new weapons would earn them a victory and this over reliance on new and untested military technologies, such as the Tiger Tanks, played a critical role in their defeat in the most famous tank battle in history.

.....

Now you can tell us Churchill never knew what he was talking about....LMAOFY!

Jul 22, 2020, 06:47

"Its not at all an appropriate way to describe the two world wars"

Yes, that was a gaffe. I am sure he does not think any war is beautiful. Up till now he was way less of a warmonger than any of his predecessors. 

Jul 22, 2020, 06:49

Still Anger your’s is not the dumbest comment on this string....that belongs to ‘Rooi’ of the Rovers with his:

‘Up until that point they were happy to watch as the brave RAF pilots kept the Luftwaffe at bay while hanging on by a fingernail. That's when the war was won and lost.‘

A comment naive enough to  embarrass even a Boy’s weekly 

Jul 22, 2020, 07:16

Wehe . . . Moffie thinks the Yanks liberated Stalingrad!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Looks like Moffie knows even less than ou Maaik about history!

Jul 22, 2020, 11:00

"Your views are your views...everybody else believes weather played a major role. Another factor you miss is the Nazi  atrocities towards the locals, strengthened Russian resolve."

Everyone's views are their own. But I believe my views backed up by the facts. The Russian weather played a role and certainly made things worse for the Germans but the perception that it was the sole or primary reason in the German defeat in 1941 is not true.

While it wasn't accurate for me to say the Russian stopped the Germans before winter kicked in they had had inflicted over 700,000 causalities on the Germans before winter started, mostly front-line combat troops. The war in Russia from the get go was extremely tough for the Germans (worse for the Russians) with July 41 being the month they took the most casualties in any month in  the war up till December 1942. The German logistics system couldn't cope with the vastness of Russia and its poor infrastructure and the Germans knew this before even going into Russia. They bet the farm on having a quick victory.

I didn't miss the Nazi atrocities, I just didn't mention them. It was one of the reasons the Russian fought so stubbornly and fanatically at times, and also fear of their own regime. German soldiers often commented how tenacious Russian soldiers were and how their resolve had greatly improved from World War 1. Be bringing this up your actually supporting my position.

"As for Kursk....the war with Russia was very much undecided before Kursk.....in 1943 Russia had retaken the Ukraine, but suffered a major loss at Karkhof. "

The Germans where defeated before Kursk, the Soviets and Allies superiority in manpower and resources was simply too great but the Allies and Soviets still had to go through the motions of finishing them off. Kursk was a notable victory for the Russians but it was more that it was stepping stone on the path to eventual victory. The German victory at Karkhof is often lauded as this amazing German victory in which the Germans where vastly outnumbered like 12 to 1 or something ridiculous and it was due to the sheer military brilliance of the Germans that they won it. But while it was a again a note worthy victory for the Germans its again being exaggerated to push the myth the Germans were vastly superior to the Russians and that only things like Hilter's incompetence, the Russian winter or Russia's massive manpower advantage was the reason they where beaten and not actually the endurance and capabilities of the Soviet Red Army.

"At Kursk so many troops and so much material was committed that a clear victory by either side would have changed the nature of the conflict for the rest of 43. As it transpired an inconclusive result with massive losses was less devastating to Russia. And that decided the war. Here are some supporting opinions"

Except its on record what the German plans where for Kursk. It was never intended by them to be war winning battle. I already explained what the German intentions where for Kursk in a previous post. The Soviets over exaggerated the battle for propaganda reasons.

Yes the forces committed to the battle where considerable on both sides. But by the time the Germans called it off they have sustained less than 60,000 causalities. If you include the Soviet counterattacks afterwards its significantly more but still notably less than Barbarrossa (over 1 million casualties)  Stalingrad (300,000-400,000), the Fall of Tunisa (290,000-320,000) and 1944's Overlord (300,000-520,000) Operation Bagration (400,000).

Yes Churchill was wrong about Kursk. Don't get me wrong I believe Churchill got more right than wrong, but he was wrong about an awful lot of things. Are you saying he got Gallipoli right? Aside from which the traditional views of the war has change and myths have been exposed over time. Churchill didn't have access to all the facts. We still don't now.

Again the idea that Kursk was a decisive battle is a common one but as more research has been done into and your subjectively look at it its not really true.

Realistically speaking the Germans where doomed once Barbarrossa failed to provide a quick victory. After that they needed everything to go right for them, make all the correct decisions and the Russians to make all incorrect decisions. That didn't come close to happening and was never likely to happen.


Jul 22, 2020, 12:05

You're very patient with Moffie, Stav. I suspect at some point you'll eventually realize he's just a very ignorant yet hilariously opinionated blowhard who also happens to be extremely childish and obnoxious and who really isn't worth the effort . . . but until then, good luck.

I just treat him as comic relief. The Yanks liberated Stalingrad! LMAO!

Jul 22, 2020, 14:51

Peeper point out where I say the USA liberated Stalingrad....  go ahead.

Jul 22, 2020, 15:00

So Anger you admit you were wrong about the impact of the weather. And then you  say Kursk was a ‘stepping stone’ to an eventual Russian victory.....totally contradicting your earlier belief that the Germans were already defeated.

What is it to be....weather/no weather....formality/stepping stone?


Wait, let me help......the weather completely blunted the German advance, taking away their advantages in mobility and tactics. And Kursk was a pivotal moment. Just  as the counter attacks around Moscow swung things in the Russian favor when they seemed defeated, a decisive German victory at Kursk could have reversed all that.

One more among many possible quotes making the same point:


Yet compared with the battles of Guadalcanal, Midway, D-Day, Arnhem, and the Bulge, the great clash at Kursk is very little known in the West and hailed only by aficionados, despite its dwarfing each of those other battles in size and indeed in importance. The veteran historian Dennis Showalter, whose many excellent books on the war form a remarkable canon of military history writing, makes a convincing case in this well-researched and well-written book that Kursk should be seen as the key turning point of the war, even more important than Stalingrad in its long-term implications. “The battle of Kursk was the Eastern Front’s transition point,” Showalter argues with a conviction supported by well-deployed evidence, “and its point of no return.”

A

Jul 22, 2020, 15:16

Most important Battles of WW2 ranked:



Game, set and match!

Jul 22, 2020, 15:42

"Peeper point out where I say the USA liberated Stalingrad....  go ahead."

Sure. On this very thread, in response to the Bozo quote "We won two world wars, two world wars, beautiful world wars . . ." you responded with this:

"Trump was obviously referring to the liberation of Stalingrad,"

I think we all know what the word "we" means, Moffie. When Bozo said "we" he meant the USA.

Ssssssssssschplotttttttt!

LMAO!

Jul 22, 2020, 17:25

No Liar.....I said ‘ Trump was obviously referring to the liberation of Stalingrad, Paris and all the other cities and countries under the yoke of the Axis.’

So were all the cities under the yoke of the Axis liberated by the US? Of course not, only a WW2 noob wouldn’t understand that reference  to the Axis, which clearly brought in all the victories of the Allies.

I repeat ‘all the other cities’.

This is one of two things....a deliberate distortion or complete ignorance of the Axis. Your usual territory Lush, dishonesty or ignorance.

It’s so easy.

Jul 22, 2020, 19:00

Wehe . . . sounds like someone's watched one too many Audie Murphy movies.

The Yanks liberated Stalingrad!

LMAO!

That's right up there with a day being measured by the speed that the sun spins on its axis.

Out of interest, Moffie, if that's how much you know about history and science, what is your strong suit?

We know it's not rugby . . .

Jul 22, 2020, 19:08


‘And how much sheet steel they gave us!’

"Now they say that the allies never helped us, but it can't be denied that the Americans gave us so many goods without which we wouldn't have been able to form our reserves and continue the war," Soviet General Georgy Zhukov said after the end of WWII.


As I showed to your discomfort, I never inferred that the US saved Stalingrad....but  General Zhukov (you have heard of him perhaps)  says  they did.


Schploooooooooooootttttttttttttttt!

Jul 22, 2020, 19:28

So Anger you admit you were wrong about the impact of the weather. And then you say Kursk was a ‘stepping stone’ to an eventual Russian victory.....totally contradicting your earlier belief that the Germans were already defeated.

As I said that weather had an impact, but it wasn't the primary factor. That was just an excuse the German generals hid behind to explain their defeat and it gained popularity because it allowed for simple comparisons to Napoleons failed invasion of Russia.

Yup the Germans where already defeated before Kursk. Their very last chance of victory was lost in 1942 when they failed to take the Caucasus oilfields but to be honest the damaged sustained in 1941 meant it was very unlikely they could of have succeeded in their objectives in 1942. After 1942 victory was was just a matter of time and resolve on the part of the Russia's and the Allies, their manpower and material advantage was beyond what the Germans could handle.

Even had the Germans won the battle of Kursk which they where never close to doing and closed the pocket and destroyed several Russian corps the Russians still had huge reserves outside of the pocket, the very reserves they used to counter attack the Germans after the Germans called off the offensive. A German victory would of made little difference, might have staved off defeat for a few extra months at the very most.

Please stop trying to argue with me on this, its clearly a topic you're out of your depth with.






Jul 22, 2020, 19:50

Moffie and the Servile Gimps take Stalingrad




A Mulligan Production of a Mule L Marshmallow film.

The gripping true story of how a handful of American Marines liberated Stalingrad, killed all the Germans and saved the Russkies.

Directed by Mule L Marshmallow

Starring Audie Moffie

Co-starring DB "Squeaky" Draad as the Alpha Gimp

And Featuring:

Dumb Plum as "Tex"

Coward Dunce as "Noble Don"

Baboon-ou as The Drooling Retard

Stav Anger as Josef Stalin

Shark Bock as Georgy Zhukov

With Special Guest Star Roy Neck as Adolf Hitler

In the new Mule L Marshmallow blockbuster Moffie and the Servile Gimps Take Stalingrad.

Coming soon to a movie theatre near you!

LMAO!

Jul 22, 2020, 20:00

Oh it was just an excuse? The soldiers and vehicles struggling through mud and record low temps were just an excuse. The mobile attacking force were not disadvantaged vs the entrenched defenders?

And I just have to accept Corporal Anger’s assertions the Germans were done in 42 and Kursk was just a formality....despite historian after historian saying it was the major turning point?

And that’s proof? Hahaha....sonny boy....You are just repeating yourself. Provide some proof ....you know, expert opinions, statistics, momentum and capability assessments.

But if the Germans were licked, why did British Historian Ben Wheatley recently  publish this:


Wheatley's assessment, backed by detailed study of battle reports and historical archives, is that on 12 July the Germans lost just five Panzer IV tanks at Prokhorovka, but decimated "kamikaze" Soviet tank formations, turning more than 200 Soviet tanks into smouldering wrecks.

He writes that dozens of Soviet T-34 tanks tumbled into an anti-tank ditch 4.5m (15ft) deep, dug by Soviet infantry, and when the Red Army realised its mistake other T-34s started queuing up to cross a bridge. German tanks were easily able to pick them off at the bridge.

.........


The fact is the Germans were totally competitive at Kursk, but failed to actually break through entrenched Russian positions.

Given the invasion of Sicily two days before the tank battle and the prospect of a 3 front war when the US and it’s allies invaded France, Germany decided to withdraw.

....


Shocked, all those things you believed are no longer so cut and dried? No need to thank me.

Jul 22, 2020, 20:04

‘And how much sheet steel they gave us!’

"Now they say that the allies never helped us, but it can't be denied that the Americans gave us so many goods without which we wouldn't have been able to form our reserves and continue the war," Soviet General Georgy Zhukov said after the end of WWII.


As I showed to your discomfort, I never inferred that the US saved Stalingrad....but  General Zhukov (you have heard of him perhaps)  says  they did.

No he does not, he was referring to land lease in general throughout the war which was very beneficial to the Russian overall. The facts are that there was no lend lease to Russia in 1941 and only a small amount of it in 1942 most of which was coming from Britain. Only from 1943 onwards did America send significant material aid to the USSR, the Soviet counter offensive that trapped the Germans in Stalingrad happened in December 1942 and the Germans had surrendered by the 2nd of Feburary. American lend lease had no bearing on the Battle of Stalingrad.



Jul 22, 2020, 20:10

Wrong again:

Your decision, Mr. President, to give the Soviet Union an interest-free credit of $1 billion in the form of materiel supplies and raw materials has been accepted by the Soviet government with heartfelt gratitude as urgent aid to the Soviet Union in its enormous and difficult fight against the common enemy – bloodthirsty Hitlerism," Stalin wrote to Roosevelt.

The first convoys with American goods were already being sent to the USSR by August 1941. Shortly afterwards the Germans found out about the convoy routes, and the allies suffered great losses. During the war Nazi submarines and torpedoes sank about 80 cargo ships destined for the USSR.

More than 14,000 U.S. airplanes, 8,000 of which came from Alaska, were given to the Soviet Union in the course of the war.

The USSR received a total of 44,000 American jeeps, 375,883 cargo trucks, 8,071 tractors and 12,700 tanks. Additionally, 1,541,590 blankets, 331,066 liters of alcohol, 15,417,000 pairs of army boots, 106,893 tons of cotton, 2,670,000 tons of petroleum products and 4,478,000 tons of food supplies made their way into the Soviet Union.

Jul 22, 2020, 20:12

But I doubt Zhukov was saying they were saved in 1944 when the Soviets were rolling westward. So I’ll just take him at his word that  they were saved when they needed saving...in 1941, 1942 and 1943 including in Stalingrad, which occurred long after the Soviets were benefitting from US support.

Jul 22, 2020, 20:17

Then there’s this:

Lenin asked that the national electrification plan be sent to every school; peasants should use it to learn to read.
 

By 1928, when the Soviets inaugurated the First Five-Year Plan, Henry Ford had become an even greater hero to the Soviets than Frederick Taylor. An emotional cult grew up around Ford’s methods and even his person. By 1925 his autobiography, My Life and Work, had had four printings in the Soviet Union, and one American in Russia reported that plant managers were studying Ford with as much enthusiasm as they had had for Lenin. More than one village adopted the name of the Fordson tractor, and the New York Times reporter Walter Duranty wrote in 1928 that “Ford means America and all that America had accomplished to make her a model and an ideal for this vast and backward country. . . . Cheap mass production is a Soviet goal, more precious from the practical standpoint than world revolution.”

Jul 22, 2020, 20:30

Oh it was just an excuse? The soldiers and vehicles struggling through mud and record low temps were just an excuse.

The emphasis on the winter as the primary reason the Germans lost is the excuse not that the extreme cold had no affect. The primary reason they lost was the damaged the Russians inflicted on them.

Wheatley's assessment, backed by detailed study of battle reports and historical archives, is that on 12 July the Germans lost just five Panzer IV tanks at Prokhorovka, but decimated "kamikaze" Soviet tank formations, turning more than 200 Soviet tanks into smouldering wrecks.

He writes that dozens of Soviet T-34 tanks tumbled into an anti-tank ditch 4.5m (15ft) deep, dug by Soviet infantry, and when the Red Army realised its mistake other T-34s started queuing up to cross a bridge. German tanks were easily able to pick them off at the bridge.

------------

So the number Wheatley claims are pretty accurate. Was actually 4 Panzer IV's and 1 Panzer III lost to the Russians 196 tanks around Prokhorovka. But this is cherry picking one sector of the whole battle and does not show the full picture.

Kursk was a pincer attack designed to close the Kursk pocket from both the South and the North. Almost immediately the northern attack was stopped cold making very little progress. The Germans did better in the south advancing further and achieving the success at Prokhorovka mentioned above. At this point the offensive was called off. Von Mainstein the German commander in the south was adamant that the Russians where close to breaking and the offensive should continue, however he was completely oblivious to the fact the Soviets still had massive tank formation in reserve, entire Russian tank corps being brought up to combat the German southern attack. In addition even Von Mainstein said he could not close the entire pocket by himself and the advance to Kursk would be pointless if the northern attack couldn't close its side of the pocket.

You want some expert opinion.




Skip to 3.05 for the part on Kursk in this video.

Jul 22, 2020, 20:35

This gives a sense of the vast scale of US support for Russia:

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.[58][59]

Jul 22, 2020, 20:45

"But I doubt Zhukov was saying they were saved in 1944 when the Soviets were rolling westward. So I’ll just take him at his word that  they were saved when they needed saving...in 1941, 1942 and 1943 including in Stalingrad, which occurred long after the Soviets were benefitting from US support."

The aid the Americans provided was very useful to the Russians overall. Russian military successes in 1943,1944 and 1945 would not have been possible without the equipment sent from the US. It undoubtedly shortened the war and saved ten's if not hundreds of thousands of Russian lives. But American land lease had no bearing on the Eastern Front in 1941 and only a token bearing in 1942. The Russian's where not saved but survived on their own.

Jul 22, 2020, 20:53

"it has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line."

That sounds impressive but bear the following in mind. At the start of Operation Barbarrossa the Russians had 100 divisions in the field and another 50 in reserve. Before Barbarossa was over they formed another 800 divisions.

Jul 22, 2020, 21:48

Which means that the US was potentially keeping 60 of 150 total Russian divisions in the Field in the early crucial stages.....certainly by 1942 considerable armaments were flowing. But these numbers would require a detailed reconstruction, the 60 divisions  only reflected Persian corridor shipments.

So I’m inclined to believe Russia’s most respected general when he said that the American shipments  kept them in the war and logic dictates that was the early/middle period which included Stalingrad and Kursk.

And it matters little if that equipment went specifically to Stalingrad as it was all fungible. The fact is the US industrial complex saved Britain and Russia.


Allied shipments to the Soviet Union[49]
YearAmount 
(tons)
%
1941360,7782.1
19422,453,09714
19434,794,54527.4
19446,217,62235.5
19453,673,81921
Total17,499,861100

Jul 22, 2020, 22:21

In the new Mule L Marshmallow blockbuster Moffie and the Servile Gimps Take Stalingrad.


Shame, nobody took Stalingrad Peeper.....that’s why they call it the defence of Stalingrad.

Wow we are dealing with some  major malfunctions here....hahaha!

Jul 23, 2020, 00:10

Which means that the US was potentially keeping 60 of 150 total Russian divisions in the Field in the early crucial stages.....certainly by 1942 considerable armaments were flowing. But these numbers would require a detailed reconstruction, the 60 divisions  only reflected Persian corridor shipments.

No it wasn't. Your own number show very little land lease was sent in 1941 and the numbers for 1942 say Allied not American aid. Most of the aid sent in 1942 sent to the USSR was from Britain who sent them 4 million tons over the course of the war. If you really believe the aid provided to the USSR by America in 1941 and 1942 amounted to equipping 60 divisions I suggest you go and do some research and lay off whatever it is you're drinking.

Christ you really do think America are the dogs bollocks don't you. Believe want you want the facts are the facts and once again they don't support your side of the argument.

To say the US saved Britain and Russia is as bad as Monty saying he saved the Americans at the Bulge.



 

Jul 23, 2020, 02:17

Anything the U.K provided Russia pales by comparison to what the US provided the U.K....so all the material assistance started in the US, even though it might have been transformed before it reached the final destination. For logistical reasons US tanks may have gone to the British forces in North Africa and British tanks might have gone to Russia.....the net though is the US gave tanks and the Soviets got tanks


You  keep ranting....I keep finding quotes which say exactly the opposite. Here’s Nikita Krushchev admitting the US was essential to Russia surviving:


According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:

On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.[32]

Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:

I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.[41]


Jul 23, 2020, 02:22

By the way Anger, I don’t think the US is always right or the bee’s knees. But your fellow Irish folk apparently do....there are 34.5 million people of Irish descent in the US, and only 4.7 slow learners left in Ireland.

Jul 23, 2020, 10:53

"By the way Anger, I don’t think the US is always right or the bee’s knees. But your fellow Irish folk apparently do....there are 34.5 million people of Irish descent in the US, and only 4.7 slow learners left in Ireland."


Ignorant. Check.

Opinionated. Check.

Childish. Check.

Obnoxious. Check.

Jul 23, 2020, 11:42

Lend lease to the Soviet Union as a % of the total industrial production of the USSR during the war amounted to 4%. That was spread over 5 years. By the numbers you took off Wikipedia. just 16.1% of that was sent in 1941-1942. We know there was no material aid from the USA in 1941 and most of  the aid sent in 1942 was sent by Britain.

It was Britain who reduced the Luftwaffe strength by a third before Barbarrossa. It was Britain continuing in the fight that forced the Luftwaffe to keep resources in France and divert notable forces into the Mediterranean. It was the British presence in Africa that forced the Germans to send the Africa Korps and engage in a very fuel intensive war, a resources that would have better spent on the Eastern front. It was Britain being in the war that forced the Germans to throw huge resources into its U-Boat fleet, something that could not be used against the USSR, those  resources that could of been spent on tanks and planes, trucks, artillery, equipment that could of been. It was Britain that sent aid in 1941 and more aid than the US did in 1942 during the early critical years.

So if anything Britain helped the Soviet Union more in the early years. But they don't go around bragging that they saved the Soviet Union.

I can also quote sources that support my viewpoint.

"Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make a major difference between defeat and victory in 1941 and early 1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet peoples" David Glantz :When Titans Clash.

Also from Glantz

"If Western Allies had not provided equipment and invaded northwest Europe, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht."

"The Soviet miracle was not due to Western assistance. Lend-Lease did not begin to affect the balance on the Eastern Front until 1943. Adam Tooze: The Wages of Destruction. The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.

Absolutely lend-lease was important, without the war would of been worse for all for Russia and the Allies. It was a team effort by the Allies and Russia, they all made significant contributions to the defeat of Germany the Russian's making the largest one. To imply the Americans saved both Britain and Russia is just totally dis-respectively to war time allies who sacrificed so much.

"But your fellow Irish folk apparently do....there are 34.5 million people of Irish descent in the US, and only 4.7 slow learners left in Ireland."

You actually think Irish Americans are Irish, as in the same as people living in Ireland. Really? Where's my Picard face palm picture gone.

"Ignorant. Check.

Opinionated. Check.

Childish. Check.

Obnoxious. Check."

That pretty much sums it up.

 



Jul 23, 2020, 11:53

"Where's my Picard face palm picture gone."


Here you go, Stav . . .


Jul 23, 2020, 12:30

Damn Picard If i hear one more tme: "Make it so number one" I'll ...

Jul 23, 2020, 17:35

No response on the Irish then Anger. But you make a long, convoluted and flawed case, that Britain which itself was only staying alive by US help was a greater force in saving Russia. Obviously the fungible nature of the vast supplies the US was sending is a concept too far for you. So let me make it even simpler.


If the US wasn’t there to make the landings in Italy and Normandy possible, the Germans  could have shifted vast resources over to the Russian front.....there was zero threat of an English invasion of either France or Italy. In fact the whole North African campaign would also have been in doubt.

And contrary to your view that the Germans were finished in 1941, Stalin actually made 3 peace offers to Germany. What leader makes a peace offer to a defeated army inside his borders?

 In actual history, Stalin made a series of peace offers from 1941–1944. The first in July 1941 offered to cede the Baltics, Ukraine (presumably including the Crimean peninsula which was not then part of Ukraine) to Germany. The second in May 1942 added Belarus to sweeten the pot. Stalin’s third peace offer in May 1943 was a proposed ceasefire along the Soviet Union’s 1938 borders which would have effectively reversed the Hitler-Stalin Pact, while leaving the Germans in control of the Baltic states, eastern Finland, the eastern half of Poland and northeastern Romania all of which had been annexed by the Soviets.’

..... ........

It’s pretty obvious .....the Germans were in the game up until Kursk... absent the USA, England would eventually have fallen and with all his resources on the Eastern front Hitler could have demanded a very favorable peace treaty with Russia.

Jul 23, 2020, 18:49

No it was simply too stupid a comment to give a serious response too.

Yes the British helped the Russians in the early phase of the war more the Americans did . You do know the British where actually "in" in the war both when the Germans invaded Russia and for over a year and half before that, the Americans didn't join in till December 1941. Either way the Russians where not saved by Lend-Lease in 1941 or 1942 but Lend-Lease was extremely helpful from 1943 onward.

Sure you can make hypothetical sceanrios all you want, it can be fun to speculate. Say the above is true, though I wouldn't say the Germans had the ability to transfer vast resources to the Russian front, most of their resources where already there. You can turn that around and ask how would America fair without British and Russian support. Could they have invaded occupied Europe straight from the US with a supply line going the whole way across the Atlantic. Could they have defeated Germany that hadn't taken immense material and manpower losses in  Russia. Would have they been able to defeat the full strength of the Luftwaffe instead of a third of it (with British support) and if so could they have done it before the Germans started deploying jet fighters in significant numbers. Maybe they could have, but the causalities would of been into the millions.

Yes Stalin made multiple offers for peace with the Germans. But Hitler was never going to accept anyone of them. 

As I said already the Germans where probably already beaten in 1941 and certainly by 1942 when they failed to take the Caucasus oilfields, Allied manpower and material resources where just too great too overcome. It was a matter of time and will power. Now the Russian people and army demonstrated they had that will power by enduring what they did and going on to win. Russian political power wasn't as strong and they did offer peace on several occasions. Not surprisingly in 1941, things looked terrible and for a while they also looked bad in 1942. However  Hitler would never accept any peace terms that did include the Germans getting the Caucasus oilfields. Any peace terms which didn't leave the oilfields in German hands where tantamount to death. There is no scenario where the Russians would have given them to the Germans either, as that would of been the same as defeat for Russia.

The 1943 terms where not favorable to the Germans, all of those territories offered where strategically not significant and Romania territory would of gone to Romania and the Finnish territory to Finland not Germany.






Jul 23, 2020, 19:05

Interpretation,  you had no comeback.....people of Irish descent  have chosen America over Ireland 80 to 20. I can see how you would rather take the deep dive.


As for Britain being in the war.....yes....but only able to help themselves until American resources were available. As for the peace terms not being to Hitler’s liking, sure, but that’s not the point. The point is you don’t sue for peace if you have defeated the enemy. 


Germany was not done on the Eastern front till Kursk, which I rather suspect you had never heard of till I schooled you. 


Jul 23, 2020, 19:30

I'll explain in as simple terms as I can.

Irish Americans are not Irish, they are American. At this point totally culturally distinct, with some minor shared traditions that's it. 

Do you want me to explain that again?

It doesn't matter if the Russians didn't know they where winning. In hindsight we now know the disparity of the two sides and the fact the Germans where never going to accept the terms the Russians offered them.

As for Kursk, its a well known Battle on the Eastern front. Tell me what have you heard about the Battle of Dubno, Operation Mars, the Rzhev Meat Grinder, Operation Bagration.

Can you tell me which was the best piston engine fighter the Russians made. What where the performance differences between a ME 109 G6 model and an La5-FN. What are you're opinions on the T-34?

I probably know a hell of alot more about it than you do.


Jul 23, 2020, 20:20

No but I could google it just like you....and then interpret it intelligently, unlike you. As for Irish Americans being separate culturally.......woooosh....you miss the point yet again.


Jul 23, 2020, 21:03

"No but I could google it just like you....and then interpret it intelligently"

You really missed your true calling as a comedian.

"As for Irish Americans being separate culturally.......woooosh....you miss the point yet again."

You really have no idea how monumentally stupid some of your arguments are do you?  Looking at the average IQ of America they most have some seriously smart people over there to compensate for the likes of you.

I'll let you get back to masturbating to the stars and strips.



Jul 23, 2020, 21:52

"Looking at the average IQ of America they most have some seriously smart people over there to compensate for the likes of you.

I'll let you get back to masturbating to the stars and strips."

Typical Rooinek argument....are you 2 related?

Jul 24, 2020, 01:03

Masturbating to the Star Spangled Banner  is what I believe he was grasping for ......hahaha. And it’s not exactly like Peeper who specializes in anal sex images.


Cut him some slack though....the fact that 80% of people of Irish descent have chosen to live in the States rather than Ireland upset the poor chap. Peeper rushed to his aid immediately recognizing a killer point. So now we have a chorus of nasty insults.

Poor fellow passes for an educated person in Ireland, but truthfully he is pretty stupid.

Jul 24, 2020, 13:40

Typical Rooinek argument....are you 2 related?

Seriously I've shown the upmost patience when debating with Moz in the past, he's the first one that started throwing insults around and acting like a child. Odd that you decided to be critical towards me before him

Gotta love it when Moz makes an absolutely idiotic point and when called out on it he just doubles down on it, its hard to tell if he actually knows how stupid what he said was and just can't bring himself to admit it or just genuinely doesn't understand its stupid.





Jul 24, 2020, 14:10

I wasn't being sarcastic it was a honest question. I know Moz can be a bit snarky at times...I've been on the receiving end of it myself...so I'm not blind to it. I wasn't trying to be overly critical...sorry if it came across as such. I really don't have a horse in this race so I just read both sides out of curiosity...some of your other responses have a familiar feel to it...almost like a more polite Rooinek alter ego, but not quite...on this and other threads.

Not accusing you of anything, just curious.

Jul 24, 2020, 15:02

He goes beyond being snarky though. His character flaws are much worse.

One can only be polite and civil for so long if the other side is consistently not over a prolonged period of time.


Jul 24, 2020, 15:09

We all have our peculiarities...:D


PS, you do come across a tad condescending at times...

Jul 24, 2020, 15:12

We do indeed!

Jul 24, 2020, 15:41

"I really don't have a horse in this race  . . ."


Wehe! This from Squeaky Toy the grovelling sycophant, the toadying and obsequious Alpha Gimp who plunges his dirty little snout up Moffie's arse at every opportunity and then whimpers for a reach-around . . . "I don't have a horse in this race"!

LMAO!

Now that is funny!

Jul 24, 2020, 17:38

Rudeneck...my utter contempt for you has nothing to do with the fact that Mozart and you are in a perpetual argument spanning decades...you really don't have a clue do you?

Jul 24, 2020, 18:02

What are my character flaws that are ‘much worse’?

Jul 24, 2020, 22:31

PS, Rooi, you are the gatkruiper...hou op om ander agter die deur te soek poephol.

 
You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top