The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 399

Polish flag over the Reichstag first?


guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #91
I just told you, Germans attacked Russia with 100% of their available forces, helped by Romanians, Italians, Finns, Hungarians and Slovaks and they still failed.

They failed because they had to fight in the western front and in Africa too at the same time.
Besides, when they first attacked Russia, they were very successful. Fighting on many fronts at the same time and the very cold winter did the rest.

By Day 17 of the attack, 300,000 Russians had been captured, 2,500 tanks, 1,400 artillery guns and 250 aircraft captured or destroyed. This was only in the territory attacked by Army Group Centre. To any military observer, the Russian Army was on the verge of a total collapse and Moscow seemed destined to fall.

In fact, the German advance had been so fast that it had compromised the whole army's supply and communication lines. The Army Group Centre paused on the Desna but it was still thought that it was only catching its breath before moving inexorably on. However, it was now that the German army was compromised by its own leader - Hitler.

historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_barbarossa.htm
Ironside 50 | 10,910
2 Jan 2011 #92
They just kept sending them west.

Check this out, especially fragment about Soviets plans and equipment!

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viktor_Suvorov&oldid=403496021
PennBoy 76 | 2,436
2 Jan 2011 #93
As the war progressed and surviving soldiers passed on their skills more and more Red Army troopers became the nightmare with the gun that Germans were so frightened of rather than a scared civilian with a rifle they faced initially.

By 1944 the Red Army soldier became a formidable adversary the large losses of men to the very end of war were do to either incompetent officers or officers who didn't care about saving lives, Zhukov's men hated him he didn't spare them at all, Stalin forced soldiers to sacrifice themselves for gaining a city by a certain date no matter the cost, usually some socialist anniversary.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Jan 2011 #94
They failed because they had to fight in the western front and in Africa too at the same time.

No they did not, prior to Kursk there was no fighting in Western Front and Rommels forces were the size of one undersized corps, if you're arguing that a single small corps would make a difference thats a joke.

hen they first attacked Russia, they were very successful

Because Russia had a sh*tty chain of command, a faulty combat plan and assembled all its forces chaotically and very close to the front, of course they had initial success.

Fighting on many fronts at the same time and the very cold winter did the rest.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? In 1941-43 Germany was fighting on ONE front, in Russia.

They also sent DAK into Africa but that was a pathetic five divisions, thats not even 70.000 men.

Zhukov's men hated him he didn't spare them at all, Stalin forced soldiers to sacrifice themselves for gaining a city by a certain date no matter the cost, usually some socialist anniversary.

You just answered yourself, high losses of the RKKA were due to political reasons or HQ indifference, not military incompetence, we're talking about 1943~ of course, prior to that it was incompetence all the way.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #95
Do you have problems with reading comprehension?

No you do. Again
historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_barbarossa.htm

By Day 17 of the attack, 300,000 Russians had been captured, 2,500 tanks, 1,400 artillery guns and 250 aircraft captured or destroyed. This was only in the territory attacked by Army Group Centre. To any military observer, the Russian Army was on the verge of a total collapse and Moscow seemed destined to fall.

In fact, the German advance had been so fast that it had compromised the whole army's supply and communication lines. The Army Group Centre paused on the Desna but it was still thought that it was only catching its breath before moving inexorably on.

So much about your great Red Army, sok.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Jan 2011 #96
In fact, the German advance had been so fast that it had compromised the whole army’s supply and communication lines. The Army Group Centre paused on the Desna but it was still thought that it was only catching its breath before moving inexorably on. However, it was now that the German army was compromised by its own leader – Hitler.

Again rubbish, AGC stopped because its armored spearhead ran out of fuel and fuel was carried by trucks which in Russia had an average speed of 10MPH on dirt roads and dirt was the only kind of road there was.

How did Hitler screw up AGC in 1941 according to you?

Also the site you quote is sh*t, by day 17 Germans were well past Grodno bagging a grand total of half a milion men in two separate encirclements.

So much about your great Red Army, sok.

And then came the Winter Offensive under Moscow and the Siberian Divisions shat all over the most elite Wehrmacht had to offer, then came the Rasputitsa and then it was 1942 when beating Russians was no longer so easy.
PennBoy 76 | 2,436
2 Jan 2011 #97
By Day 17 of the attack, 300,000 Russians had been captured, 2,500 tanks, 1,400 artillery guns and 250 aircraft captured or destroyed.

Russians also had quick victories on a large scale, Operation Bagration 22 June 1944 to 19 August 1944 through eastern Poland and Belarus for example where 20 German divisions simply disappeared.
David_18 68 | 982
2 Jan 2011 #98
Germans have lived there for over 1000 years...

So did Poles ;)

BB those were ethnic Poles (mostly) fleeing Poland using various relatives, most of them never spoke a word in german either! Poland was poor, Germany had a Marshalls Plan rolling you figure it out.

Indeed and thats' my point about those people who had grandparents who fled to germany at those times.

They believe so strongly that they are Germans bla bla bla...

Well well whatever that makes them happy ;) Riiiiiiiigght?????
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Jan 2011 #99
Russians also had quick victories on a large scale, Operation Bagration 22 June 1944 to 19 August 1944 through eastern Poland and Belarus for example where 20 German divisions simply disappeared.

Russians had first large scale victories in the winter of 1941, lots of them.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #100
How did Hitler screw up AGC in 1941 according to you?

We'll never agree Sok doesn't matter how many links I (or anyone else) will provide because you still have lots of sympathy for your Soviet friends and I personally deeply hate communism. I'm providing neutral links (neither German nor Russian) and you still keep disagreeing with it. BB provided even a Russian link and you still dismissed it. You seem to be blind in your love to communism and that's why there's no sense to continue this exchange.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #101
YES PP (lol). The point is that they wouldn't have the Germans outnumbered if Hitler wouldn't attack so many countries at the same time.

Maybe. Maybe not. He was so worried about Bolshevikism, yet he didn't focus on the source of Bolshevikism, the Soviet Union. He was spread thin, but I doubt he would have beat the Russians anyway. Besides, he would have concentrated his military on Russia only to find France, Britain and others attacking his exposed Western border.

Either way he was completely outnumbered! Even with the wehrmacht, he would have had trouble fighting the Russians first, everyone else after.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #102
Just read the link I provided above.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Jan 2011 #103
We'll never agree Sok doesn't matter how many links I (or anyone else)

The only thing in your link is that AGC stopped and then an enigmatic statement that it was messed with by Hitler.

The historical fact is that AGC had to stop because it went out of juice and had to wait for its logistics to catch up, Hitler had nothing to do with it.

will provide because you still have lots of sympathy for your Soviet friends and I personally deeply hate communism.

F*ck Soviets and Russia mate, dont like either but i do like my history clean and true.

I'm providing neutral links (neither German nor Russian)

Problem is you can't discuss WW2 on a certain level if you dont touch books, i'll be more direct, online links are worth sh*t as far as WW2 discussion because unless we'll start uploading books (which i can do of course) the general info sites or wiki will never cut it, ever.

BB provided even a Russian link and you still dismissed it. You seem to be blind in your love to communism and that's why there's no sense to continue this exchange.

BB provided a link thats rampantly anti-communist and thats it, human wave was a tactic, often a viable if a wastefull one but by 1943 this tactic was no longer held or practiced by RKKA (with a few notable exceptions).

Personally i hate communism but this discussion is on a completely different level, we're evaluating two armies and the fact that one was Nazi and the other was Communist means absolutely nothing on any level here.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #104
Just read the link I provided above.

Read the link Ironside provided. It's about Viktor Suvorov, a spy who wrote about the Red Army and Stalin. I believe what he writes about Stalin using Hitler to further communism. He seems to have done that.
Chicago Pollock 7 | 504
2 Jan 2011 #105
No exception here. At the beginning of the WW2, if Hitler wouldn't go so many different directions, the Germans if they attacked just one country at the time, would have beaten any army out there.

The German Army lost to the Russian Army. England and France did not have to declare war on Germany so soon. They should have waited longer for Germany to exhaust itself in Russia, afterall that's what happened eventually.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Jan 2011 #106
Read the link Ironside provided. It's about Viktor Suvorov, a spy who wrote about the Red Army and Stalin. I believe what he writes about Stalin using Hitler to further communism. He seems to have done that.

Suvorov is the guy who's on the other end of the crazy scale, he went so far as to claim Stalin deliberately lost so many battles as to be able to reform RKKA faster, the guy is amusing but not to be taken seriously.

The German Army lost to the Russian Army. England and France did not have to declare war on Germany so soon. They should have waited longer for Germany to exhaust itself in Russia, afterall that's what happened eventually.

Germany was going to attack France whether France declared war or not.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #107
I'm not going to argue with you guys.

The German Blitzkrieg technique was as devastating in Russia as it had been in the rest of Europe. The scene was set for a war of annihilation waged by the Nazis against the Soviets with no mercy shown by either side. One week into the German invasion, 150,000 Soviet soldiers were either dead or wounded - more than during the five months of the Battle of the Somme.

As the German armies swept further into the Russian heartland, one million Soviet troops were drafted to protect Kiev. But despite Stalin's ruthless order forbidding any city to surrender, Kiev fell and 600,000 Soviet soldiers were captured.

bbc/history/worldwars/wwtwo
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #108
To any military observer, the Russian Army was on the verge of a total collapse and Moscow seemed destined to fall.

If that's true, why didn't it? Perhaps it was stronger than we know...

The Blitzkrieg can only go so far, gw, before it fizzles out. Remember, slow and steady wins the race and that's what the Soviet Union did. It was slow but with so many soldiers and resolve Stalin could send several divisions west. In case one was defeated, there was another fighting after it.

Soviet union had a gigantic army that Hitler couldn't defeat and that's a fact. That is how Europe became divided. No one wanted to fight Stalin and push back the Red Army.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #109
If that's true,

Listen PP and few others too (no irony here I promise), do you consider yourself intelligent? I assume you do, then tell me why are you still seeing this as a discussion between us? I'm providing historical facts based on quite a few links in the meantime. This is not just some kind of private opinion, this is written by people who investigated history before they created this link and posted it online.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #110
Well yes...and then we have reality. Fall of Nazi Germany. Division of Europe. Rise of the iron curtain. Why did all that happen if the Red Army was smoke. We have historical documentation and we have outcome. I choose to let outcome preside.

You think all these people would let that outcome happen if the Red Army was this weak, ineffective thing?
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #111
Well yes...and then we have reality. Fall of Nazi Germany.

Of course we have and I told you earlier why, Hitler attacked to many countries at the same time. In a case of the SU, additionally came the really cold winter that helped the Soviets to beat the Germans.

Why did all that happen if the Red Army was smoke

I'm not saying that the Soviets were so hopeless, I'm saying that the Germans lost mainly because of the earlier mentioned reasons, that's all.

You think all these people would let that outcome happen if the Red Army was this weak, ineffective thing?

It's not really about the Soviets, it's about the Germans who were extremely weakened by Hitler's stupid policy. Let's be honest PP, show me one even a halfway intelligent strategist who would split up his war activities into so many fronts. This is what happens when a psycho corporal leads the whole army.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #112
Of course we have and I told you earlier why, Hitler attacked to many countries at the same time. In a case of the SU, additionally came the really cold winter that helped the Soviets to beat the Germans.

He would have ran into just as much trouble focusing all his attention on Russia. Russian resolve would have eventually exhausted the wehrmacht, leaving Britain, France and America opportunity to sweep in and get him from the west. He just didn't have enough people in his army to be that powerful and others were not fighting for him. He was isolated. He would have burned himself out, eventually, no matter what.
Chicago Pollock 7 | 504
2 Jan 2011 #113
I'm providing historical facts based on quite a few links in the meantime.

True but one battle doesn't make a war. The Soviet Army defeated Hitler's German war machine. They were defeated by the time of the 1944 Normandy invasion (yes, the weather helped).

Germany was going to attack France whether France declared war or not.

They wouldn't be able to after losing huge Armies in Russia.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #114
He would have ran into just as much trouble focusing all his attention on Russia.

You even say "he could have", we call it speculation. The facts presented above (the extremely fast progress of the German army) show different scenario.

would have eventually exhausted the wehrmacht, leaving Britain, France and America opportunity to sweep in and get him from the west. He just didn't have enough people in his army to be that powerful and others were not fighting for him. He was isolated. He would have burned himself out, eventually, no matter what.

Accordingly to the fast progress of the Germans in the SU, I don't believe that the Soviets would beat the Germans without the western and the African front.

I totally disagree with your "no matter what".
I observed on this forum that many Poles still have a lot of sympathy for the Soviets even the ones who live in the US like you. I mean, you guys were practically occupied by them for so long. You are defending your enemy. Strange.

True but one battle doesn't make a war. The Soviet Army defeated Hitler's German war machine. They were defeated by the time of the 1944 Normandy invasion (yes, the weather helped).

Isn't it what I've been saying repeatedly so many times tonight that the Germans lost because Hitler made them fight on so many different fronts?
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #115
We've learned a lot since then. Number one is, do not act like a big shot just because you have a few tanks, subs and planes. It's more important to have people on your side than all sorts of glittering machinery. Shear numbers win wars unless you are talking nuclear.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #116
You seem to totally ignore what I'm saying. Oh well, no point to continue this discussion then.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #117
You seem to totally ignore what I'm saying.

I do get your point. Everyone agrees Hitler was the Nazi flaw.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #118
he was the biggest enemy of his own country and people.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649
2 Jan 2011 #119
True. But you should ask yourself if the Nazis would have been just as bad without him...only more adept at winning wars...
guesswho 4 | 1,289
2 Jan 2011 #120
But you should ask yourself if the Nazis would have been just as bad without him

for one, there would be no Nazis if no Hitler.


Home / History / Polish flag over the Reichstag first?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.