Originally posted by buffalobillHe had strange ideas--didn't want anything to do aircraft carriers, for instance. After the Bismarck was sunk, he didn't want to risk the Tirpitz so it became a white elephant for the rest of the war. In a similar vein he wouldn't let the Fallschirmjaeger fight as paratroopers after the losses they suffered in Crete--relegating them to elite infantry status. Sentimentality?
I don't think Hitler ever trusted the navy or was scared of losing ships.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf Moscow had fallen, so would Soviet Russia because SR was massively centrilised. Their entire military command and control (Stavka) was based in Moscow. If it had fallen they would have had nothing to command the armies with- there was no other principle cities to fall back to.
...... It they were tied up in the East, what would have happened in front of Moscow? I'm not sure, but I don't think the Nazis win even if they take Moscow;
EDIT: A good summary of the Soviet-Japanese clash in 1939 is at http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/nomonhan.aspx
Stalin was there, and so was nearly all of the government. The popualation of SR was kept in check through fear of the government and its representives -e.g. Central Commision, NKVD. If these had fallen - or even been seen to fall, there would be no garuntee that the population would listen to the government if it had been seen to be weak.
All of the organising that had gone in to trying to recreate the Red Army was being done from Moscow, the General Staff was based there. If there was no-one left to orgnise the defence of SR, it could not have continued.
Also, a large proportion of the RA's best troops where in Moscow, if they had fallen there would be no military hope of victory.
Moscow was a status symbol to the RA. If it fell, so would the morale and willingness to fight of the RA.
Finally, a key feature in SRs eventual victory was the T-34 tanks; the existance of which was not previously know of by the Germans. Although the tanks would not have been destroyed in the defeat, due to the great secrecy around them, the only people who knew how to use them where the soldiers of the Tank Corps HQ. Where was that based? Moscow.
theone00
Originally posted by no1marauderThe facts are not the issue but the interpretation of them. Your conclusion is that France was economically/industrially incapable of continuing the war after just six weeks, mine that it was militarily beaten and/or lost the will to fight. We merely differ on this point.
Your stubborn refusal to admit facts is most annoying. I've heard of Dunkirk, but you've apparently not heard that more than 60,000 British troops had been landed in Brittany within days afterwards. The Maginot Line had "long been taken" is factually incorrect; some of the Line was only captured AFTER the Armistice. No one said industrial capacity played ...[text shortened]... h surrender, though on June 18, German forces were still 180 miles from the port of Brest.
Vichy France was mere tokenism by Germany. It was independent in name only and a pretence. That not ALL the Maginot Line had been taken is irrelevant - the bits that the Germans wanted had fallen. The rest could be mopped up later which is one of the principle strategies of blitzkrieg. After losing the fighting effectiveness of 340 000 men at Dunkirk and a whole bunch more killed or captured, I still maintain that Britain was incapable of mounting any military operations on land - and would not in any event risk losing its remaining expeditionary forces.
Finally, I would hardly call my opinion "intellectual dishonesty"-
Originally posted by the one00This is simplistic hogwash. The command structure of the Soviets had no intention of being captured in Moscow; arrangements had been made to move these assets further East. The loss of Moscow would have been militarily significant only because it was a center of rail and road lines; this would have been somewhat of a blow to the Soviet ability to transfer troops and supplies freely. Morale is overrated in war; troops fight for many complex reasons based on social conditioning and personal experiences. I find little likelihood and no historical evidence that suggests the USSR would have rolled over if Moscow fell.
If Moscow had fallen, so would Soviet Russia because SR was massively centrilised. Their entire military command and control (Stavka) was based in Moscow. If it had fallen they would have had nothing to command the armies with- there was no other principle cities to fall back to.
Stalin was there, and so was nearly all of the government. The popualation ...[text shortened]... o use them where the soldiers of the Tank Corps HQ. Where was that based? Moscow.
theone00
Originally posted by buffalobillYou may maintain anything you desire, but the historical fact that the British landed well over 100,000 troops in Brittany within days of the Dunkirk operation is a pretty direct refutation of your claim that "Britain was incapable of mounting any military operations on land - and would not in any event risk losing its remaining expeditionary forces."
The facts are not the issue but the interpretation of them. Your conclusion is that France was economically/industrially incapable of continuing the war after just six weeks, mine that it was militarily beaten and/or lost the will to fight. We merely differ on this point.
Vichy France was mere tokenism by Germany. It was independent in name only and a ...[text shortened]... ng expeditionary forces.
Finally, I would hardly call my opinion "intellectual dishonesty"-
Vichy France was not occupied by German troops. That is my point. France could have fought on in 1940, but decided it had little hope of victory. One of the factors in that decision, as shown by the writings of the French leadership, was that they had lost the industrial North. You can assert that this played no factor in their decision to surrender if you choose, but you should bring some historical facts to support your conclusion. Certainly, the French had been heavily defeated at the frontiers and in Northern France and it seems unlikely that they could have held any part of France, but they choose to surrender when they still had a significant military force in the field. The question is why; I've given a partial explanation based on historical evidence; you've given your assertions based mostly on incorrect information.
Originally posted by chancremechanicYour post is more of a rant against American liberals than anything else. The pointy hat refers to KKK attire. You just failed to mention Mexicans, dunce.
If you read my post, moron, I was answering a sub-post explaining the reason why millions of Russians would fight for their country under a brutal dictatorship. Did you stop world History at 4th grade? Now, you appear to be the dunce......🙄
Originally posted by no1marauderYour numbers keep changing. Firstly it was 60 000 in Brittany, now 100 000 and in another post 168 000 "mostly British troops" were evacuated. What is the case?
You may maintain anything you desire, but the historical fact that the British landed well over 100,000 troops in Brittany within days of the Dunkirk operation is a pretty direct refutation of your claim that "Britain was incapable of mounting any military operations on land - and would not in any event risk losing its remaining expeditionary forces."
...[text shortened]... on historical evidence; you've given your assertions based mostly on incorrect information.
2 edits
Originally posted by buffalobillWhy don't you look it up yourself?? The 60,000 was from memory; when I found the website it said 162,000 but didn't break it down by nationality. If you could read, you'd see in the last post I said "WELL OVER 100,000" British troops to be on the safe side. Why don't you address the point rather than try to nitpick when the facts are against your argument?
Your numbers keep changing. Firstly it was 60 000 in Brittany, now 100 000 and in another post 168 000 "mostly British troops" were evacuated. What is the case?
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, this is a nitpicking point because I addressed your points previously. Given that the Germans by now had a million allied prisoners, that 340 000 os so allied troops had been evacuated from Dunkirk (220 000 of them British), I hardly see that 60 000/100 000 stood a chance. The larger figure of 160 000 is the total number of allied troops evacuated.
Why don't you look it up yourself?? The 60,000 was from memory; when I found the website it said 162,000 but didn't break it down by nationality. If you could read, you'd see in the last post I said "WELL OVER 100,000" British troops to be on the safe side. Why don't you address the point rather than try to nitpick when the facts are against your argument?
Vichy was a puppet state, pure and simple. Some 60 000 Vichy Jew wound up in concentration camps.
Originally posted by Silver SlayerMore Germans were killed by the cold than in actual combat as the effects of an El Nino produced the worst winter in Russia for hundreds of years.
In an lazy attept to gain good ideas and sources of information for an essay from brainy chess players/historians, I pose the following question!!
To what extent was the victory of Soviet arms by 1944 the result of the Soviet Unions overwhelming resources?
Thanks in advance to those who attempt an answer!!
D
1 edit
Originally posted by buffalobillNow you are talking out of your fecal-orifice. Don't forget to wipe after eating, and brush after chitting, buffalo chip......
Your post is more of a rant against American liberals than anything else. The pointy hat refers to KKK attire. You just failed to mention Mexicans, dunce.
Originally posted by RagnorakYour answer doesn't explain why the Germans were slaughterd.
More Germans were killed by the cold than in actual combat as the effects of an El Nino produced the worst winter in Russia for hundreds of years.
D
See, the German tanks were superior to the Russian machines BECAUSE the Germans made more precise machinery. The fact that the German tanks had less tolerances built into them meant that they had less sloppiness in the cylinders - which meant that the German tanks couldn't turn over in the cold Russian winter, while the Russian tanks (with lots of sloppiness in their machinery) started up! 😲