I don’t have time to read ALL of Ironman’s post’s or ALL of yours, but it would change nothing if I did, because they would be his and your opinion. Im sure you could find things I have written that you dont agree with and I could find things I dont agree with that you have written.
Im sure it would change everything if you did Mike. try reading just some from Jun/July.[/quote]
I never heard this alter-history.
Press on past Berlin? The Soviets made it to Berlin BEFORE the US. They were already there when US troops got there. Now if you meant to hurry and get to Berlin and move past it before the Soviets could get to Berlin, then I’d understand what you’re saying. However, the Germans in France didn’t just roll over. They faught like hell. It was not a walk in the park to get to Berlin, and it wasn’t some quick, dashing ride across the countryside. There were hundreds of thousands of German troops in France to defeat.
This “a common misconception in US politicians is that friendship will affect politics” of yours is, well, yours.
Still trying to blame the actions of the USSR on the US in some way eh?
field marshal model, knowing the war was lost, surrendered his entire army group (300,000) men without fighting and shot himself. This aided the US advance into germany A LOT.
I think we are forgetting that the occupation zones in Germany were decided way before May 45. Some US commanders advocated advancing on Berlin but, quite rightly in my opinion, Eisenhower said that it was stupid to take unecessary casualties for territory that would just have to be handed back to the Soviets.
Obviously the USSR made it appearent that they were not the sweethearts we hoped they would be in the way they acted right after WWII. However, in international politics, you don’t just go make an enemy out of a nation as big and with as large an army, that just whooped the Germans, simply because they are not playing ball. That would be ridiculously hasty and dangerous as all fluck.
As I’ve shown you with a references, it was not until 1948 that the US began to decide that the USSR was an actual ENEMY. There is a big difference between being an enemy and a cold-shouldered friend.
[b]What is it that you think the US could have done? Declare war on Russia, who has thousands of tanks, hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and hundreds of airplanes that the US sent them by ship during their conflict with the Germans?
Please. Inform us how the US was going to push the Soviet Union aside and take the Eastern Eruopean countries away from them.[/b]
I’m waiting to hear that one. :shock:
There is no sence in trying to blame the actions of the USSR on some imagined failure of the US. It does not hold water. The US did, in Europe, what no other nation did or was capable of doing - pushing back and defeating the hundreds of thousands of German troops, all the way to Berlin. If you want to blame some nation for something, blame the Soviets for not being better neighbors at an increasing level over the 3-4 years after the war. Perhaps you should blame the British or French for not being better prepared to stop the roll-over in France that the Germans found so easy. But trying to find fault in the US for what the USSR did after WWII is ridiculous.
Please, explain to us how the US could have pushed the USSR aside and made them hand over Eastern Europe.
Iron-Bob
Where in this statement from ww2 fanatic do you derive your anti-US stance?
Patton wanted to, but now it seems that would have been a big mistake. Although Russia turned out to be our enemy, we solved it peacefully, that is without any actually fighting. But if we had invaded Russia at the time, we couldve prevented the Cold War, and the almost devastating nuclear war that wouldve resulted from war with Russia. Im sure during the Cold War people were regretting not invading Russia during ww2. What do you guys think?
I dont see him blaming the US for not continuing the war and tackling the Soviet Union.
WTF are you on? Where have I blamed anything on America? A feasibility study was done on pressing on to Berlin by one of Eisenhower’s staff (can’t remember who off the top of my head, and the chances of me making the effort to walk upstairs and dig the book out for you are, frankly, zero) who vastly overestimated the casualties that Allied forces would suffer. Germans did indeed fight hard in France, my granddad was on of the ones fighting them. Once the Allies got into Germany however, many German soldiers realised the war was over and surrendered in droves to the Allies to escape Soviet retribution.
The thing about US politicians thinking that personal friendship can affect international relationships comes from Berlin by Antony Beevor, who says that Churchill did not trust Stalin, but FDR thought he could handle him because he considered him a personal friend. If you want to argue against a world respected historian, crack on. If you actually read my post before pressing your ‘reply with standard guff about anti-Americansim’ button you would see that after I wrote that I asked ‘Is this true?’
Once again I would advise you to read ALL that he has written before you spring to his defence.[/quote]
Don’t forget the post which got deleted, because he resorted to personal insults when we refused to bow to his superior wisdom. What do you think he got banned for?
Jan
Oh, so now you are contending, to support your perposterous assertions that the US is to blame for the actions of the USSR after WWII, that it was some kind of easy walk in the park for the US in France, and that the US could have simply pushed the gas pedal harder and gotten to Berlin a lot sooner?
Listen to yourself. All of that fighting and struggle never happened eh? You should read up on WWII, firstly. Secondly, you should realize that it makes you look like a dumbass if you contend that defeating 400,000 German troops in France should have been a few days of work.
EDITED TO BE KINDER TO THE UNKIND
Who has blamed anything on the US?
Oh, so now you are contending, to support your perposterous assertions that the US is to blame for the actions of the USSR after WWII, that it was some kind of easy walk in the park for the US in France, and that the US could have simply pushed the gas pedal harder and gotten to Berlin a lot sooner?
Listen to yourself. All of that fighting and struggle never happened eh? You should read up on WWII, firstly. Secondly, you should realize that it makes you look like a dumbass if you contend that defeating 400,000 German troops in France should have been a few days of work.
EDITED TO BE KINDER TO THE UNKIND[/quote]
First of all, IRONMAN, you are the one being “UNKIND”. I;ve haven’t raised my voice or said "Oh, so now you are contending, to support your perposterous assertions that the US is to blame for the actions of the USSR after WWII, that it was some kind of easy walk in the park for the US in France, and that the US could have simply pushed the gas pedal harder and gotten to Berlin a lot sooner?
Listen to yourself. All of that fighting and struggle never happened eh? You should read up on WWII, firstly. Secondly, you should realize that it makes you look like a dumbass if you contend that defeating 400,000 German troops in France should have been a few days of work."
and your confusing me with someone else. i haven’t posted much since page 4,5. And i posted once on page 8.
I haven’t said any of that crap that you have accused me of.
By the way, the german losses in normandy were 89,000 causalties, 198,000 captured, not 400k. and this was accomplished by the ALLIED FORCES. not just the USA.
War is never “a walk in the park”, but the we were lucky that we didn’t have to face the majority of the german panzer divisions in france. and we were lucky that we outnumbered, outgunned the germans in an insane ratio.
We had complete air supremacy, artillery supremacy, and never-ending replacements of infantry and tanks.
But compared to the tremendously violent Eastern Front , the western front was not as fierce.
I was just adding a point that model surrendered his army group, letting americans get closer to berlin.
and, ironman, stop being so rude and picking fights with other members. If you are actually 44 years old, you should know how to commit to calm discussion.
So I see another US citizen gets added to Irn-bobs list of anti-US members of this forum.
His agenda continues…
Who’s talking about Normandy? You seem to think that Normany was it, and after the battles at Normany, the fight for France was over. By June 1944, the German forces in France numbered 46 infantry divisions and 9 panzer divisions (notably the Panzer Lehr, 1st, 2nd, and 12th SS Panzer Divisions). In addition, of the 850,000 men under Rundstedt’s command, 60,000 were hilfswillige (prisoners from the Russian front who volunteered for Russian service. But, most infantry divisions were of good quality and several consisted of battle-hardened veterans from the Eastern front.
No walk in the park alright.
No not agree Germans not have 850.000 mans in france if they have Allied never took the Normandy and france.
Germans have offansive with 60.000 mans ,can you imagine what will been if they attack with 500.000 or 850.000 mans.
Luftwaffe Flak-Einheiten, including III Flak-Korps and other battalions ~ 94,444
Luftwaffe Flieger-Einheiten ~ 120,000
LuftwaffeBoden-Einheiten ~ 116-126,000
Kriegesmarine ~ 100,000
OT/RAD/NSKK ~ 70-90,000
HiWi and Ostruppen ~ 67,000
THere were many non-army personnel, too. france does face the sea and is in the path of allied bombers.
in any event, with losses totaling 289,000,( Joachim Ludewig’s Der Deutsche Rückzug aus Frankreich 1944) , the vast majority of the german army were able to escape normandy.
“But, most infantry divisions were of good quality and several consisted of battle-hardened veterans from the Eastern front.”
No. Many of the infantry divisions were static divisions and poorly equipped. Many static divisions had almost no personnel with combat experience and spent the war louging around in france.
THe infantry divisions that did a tour of duty in the ostfront were insanely depleted. All that was left were battle-hardened Ncos/officers. The private soldiers were either mediocrely trained conscripts(4 months training) or half-trained conscripts.
In that sense, most of the german soldiers in normandy never saw combat before. A lot were unreliable conscripts from foreign nations. Mongolians, Cossacks, Georgians, Muslims, chinese, ukranian, czechs, rumanians, italians, etc. This is hardly the german army of 1939-1943.
IE. even elite units, like the 17th SS, 3rd Fallashimager division, did not even complete their training yet in time for the invaision!. In the case of 3rd Fallshimager, Only one regiment, von der heyte’s regiment 6 was combat ready.
:lol: So now you’ve resorted to trying to undermine the conflict between American and German forces to support you ridiculous claim that the US could have pushed the USSR aside and taken over Eastern Europe, even though the USSR got there first. That’s sad.
:lol: So now you’ve resorted to trying to undermine the conflict between American and German forces to support you ridiculous claim that the US could have pushed the USSR aside and taken over Eastern Europe, even though the USSR got there first. That’s sad.[/quote]
You A S S! I NEVER SAID THAT! MY claim was that the US could not conquer the soviet union and its territories!!!
Ironman making up quotes :shock:
That’s never happened before!
Yes.
“By June 1944, the German forces in France numbered 46 infantry divisions and 9 panzer divisions (notably the Panzer Lehr, 1st, 2nd, and 12th SS Panzer Divisions). Several infantry divisions were inexperienced and contained lower quality young troops and older men - troops that were unable to immediately fight on the Russian front. In addition, of the 850,000 men under Rundstedt’s command, 60,000 were hilfswillige (prisoners from the Russian front who volunteered for Russian service - mostly Tartars, Cossacks, Ukrainians, etc.) But, most infantry divisions were of good quality and several consisted of battle-hardened veterans from the Eastern front.”
you definitely have some sort of mental disorder.
I never said that the US could conquer russia in previous posts. Nor am I trying to undermine the conflict. I am telling what actually happened. This statement, is a complete lie. I have never claimed that the US would taken over eastern europe.
[/quote]
:lol: So now you’ve resorted to trying to undermine the conflict between American and German forces to support you ridiculous claim that the US could have pushed the USSR aside and taken over Eastern Europe, even though the USSR got there first. That’s sad.[/quote]
“But, most infantry divisions were of good quality and several consisted of battle-hardened veterans from the Eastern front.”
No.
I’ve given you better proof of this incorrect statement then your crappy googlesearch which proves nothing!
THese are official figures, from german archives. The german army in the west was a shadow of itself, it terms of manpower and training!