By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 13:19 - Jul 29 by controversial_jack
I get that, but the Americans and British troops were not to the same standard, not even close.
That's a far too generic a statement. German elite forces like the fallschirmager were the best, that's probably without question, however the general German, British, Canadian, American, French soldier were much the same standard. German tactics and leadership was initially brilliantly innovative and caught the allies out. They had been training for this war since the early 1930's and were more than ready, the allies were sadly not.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 09:54 - Jul 30 with 905 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 02:31 - Jul 30 by Treforys_Jack
That's a far too generic a statement. German elite forces like the fallschirmager were the best, that's probably without question, however the general German, British, Canadian, American, French soldier were much the same standard. German tactics and leadership was initially brilliantly innovative and caught the allies out. They had been training for this war since the early 1930's and were more than ready, the allies were sadly not.
That's a very good and balanced post, unlike many on here. Germany also had many elite Panzer , SS and other units who were more than a match for the Allies. As i previously stated, whenever similar units met in combat, the Germans would almost always prevail. They had the ability to organise themselves into coherent units. When their officers were killed or injured, their NCOs would take charge, this was something the Allies didn't do so well, especially the Americans.
1
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 16:19 - Jul 30 with 848 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 09:54 - Jul 30 by controversial_jack
That's a very good and balanced post, unlike many on here. Germany also had many elite Panzer , SS and other units who were more than a match for the Allies. As i previously stated, whenever similar units met in combat, the Germans would almost always prevail. They had the ability to organise themselves into coherent units. When their officers were killed or injured, their NCOs would take charge, this was something the Allies didn't do so well, especially the Americans.
Agreed, they were far too few though in comparison to the Americans and Russians. The German equipment was far superior in the first few yrs of the war and was much sought after by allied soldiery. Their problem was, it wasn't easily replaced or replenished, whereas the Americans and Russians could throw men and equipment, which was always going to win out in the end.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 16:59 - Jul 30 with 831 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 19:21 - Jul 29 by ExiledJack
Sorry I didn’t know that, and to be clear I’ve still not seen evidence but will take your word for it as an accurate portrayal and not an interpretation.
You will not find any post of mine denying that Russia has invaded Ukraine. I’m concerned that anyone would believe this. Unless I’m missing something not even Russia denies it’s invaded Ukraine? Which does circle back to the propaganda accusation, surely such a claim is based on deep confusion rather than propaganda? My contention is that Jacks on this board are not knowingly Russian misinformation agents, but I probably shouldn’t be surprised if I’m wrong about that (or perhaps there are Russians posing as Jacks).
Thanks for clearing things up a little for me.
You're good mate, it's definitely not an interpretation. Two posters have flat out denied Russia has invaded despite what even Russia herself has said.
It's not confusion as this has been pointed out to them several times by several posters.
There is another poster who has even said that the Ukraine armed forces have been destroyed and have lost the war, despite the evidence. When I asked him for his links to these stories he refused to supply any, telling me to find them myself. Of the three, one is defintely further left, one is further right and in my opinion the other one is just a WUM. All 3 though tell us not to believe the MSM and CJ and BJ both post links to pro Russian sources such as Russia Today which, at the very least, suggests they are believing propaganda.
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 18:42 - Jul 29 by shingle
Blimy i explain to you to read the quotes from Trumans book and still you spout up utter nonsense so lets try again, Trueman was the president and led the Americans in the war after Roosevelt died you best look that up before you deny that is not true, Truman clearly states what i have said in his book, he explains that the exploits of the Germans in Russia had finished them even if they had beaten the Russians it would have been the last hurrah of a spent force so to speak, top historians confirm this as well, so do we believe there knowledge on the matter as well as Harry S Truman or do we believe a clueless conspiracy theorist like you, i also remember showing you what the world Judo federation told us in that Putin never gained a legitimate black belt and it was simply falsely awarded to him because of who he was and you then said that he did and they were wrong because you had seen videos of him performing which were clearly staged you then went on and told everyone on here you know this because you yourself are a highly skilled judo practitioner ffs so my conclusion is that you are absolutely bonkers and have a very unhealthy fetish for the likes of Putin Stalin and there cronies.
[Post edited 29 Jul 2022 18:45]
Not to get into an argument about it but as I already said, if Germany had beaten Russia then its quite possible they wouldn't have lost so many men. The retreat and all thse losses wouldn't have happened and they would have had vast resources to plunder.
The USA didn't enter the war for nearly another 6 months, if Germany had won in the East then a lot of battle hardened troops would have been returned West.
The final outcome would depend on so many variables including just how many men Germany had lost but if they'd gotten the quick win Hitler wanted then things could have been very different. What Trueman and Churchill wrote could have had a not towards political expediency at the time, who knows. One question would need to be answered though, if the German army was really that badly mauled by Barbarossa, how come Germany managed to fight on for another 4 years? They sent 3.8 million men into Russia but their armed forces peaked at 13.6 million while over the course of the war they used approx 20 million, from what I've read.
When looking at hypothetical possible outcomes many things become possible and not every historian agrees. Trueman may have been 100% right but he may also be wrong. We can never know for sure.
PS, Contro has quite a bit of form for denying well known facts are true. If they don't help his argument he just denies them.
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 17:36 - Jul 30 by Catullus
Not to get into an argument about it but as I already said, if Germany had beaten Russia then its quite possible they wouldn't have lost so many men. The retreat and all thse losses wouldn't have happened and they would have had vast resources to plunder.
The USA didn't enter the war for nearly another 6 months, if Germany had won in the East then a lot of battle hardened troops would have been returned West.
The final outcome would depend on so many variables including just how many men Germany had lost but if they'd gotten the quick win Hitler wanted then things could have been very different. What Trueman and Churchill wrote could have had a not towards political expediency at the time, who knows. One question would need to be answered though, if the German army was really that badly mauled by Barbarossa, how come Germany managed to fight on for another 4 years? They sent 3.8 million men into Russia but their armed forces peaked at 13.6 million while over the course of the war they used approx 20 million, from what I've read.
When looking at hypothetical possible outcomes many things become possible and not every historian agrees. Trueman may have been 100% right but he may also be wrong. We can never know for sure.
PS, Contro has quite a bit of form for denying well known facts are true. If they don't help his argument he just denies them.
The Wermacht had already lost half of there military personal when they were on the gates of Moscow and still capable of taking it when Hitler went against his generals wishes and decided to put taking Moscow on hold and concentrate on the Caucasus oilfields, this give the Russians the time to regroup and recover eventually leading to a massive counter attack on a now seriously depleted German war machine, so now seriously think about this, half of a countries military already wiped out and they would have lost many more when taking Moscow so how could they possibly have strengthened and held on to Moscow without the soldiers to do so, even if they brought some from other fronts it would have weakened the other fronts and the Germans dont forget where already on there knees back home with very little being produced in there factories, then there was a massive allied bombing campaign on the horizon which would eventually destroy there cities as well, they were finished mun it is plain and simple, the Americans had vast resources of everything including personal and it would have been a question of when not if they defeated the Germans and liberated the Russians if the Germans had taken Moscow, and the Germans would certainly have managed that before they completely fell apart.
1
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 20:01 - Jul 30 with 771 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 18:45 - Jul 30 by shingle
The Wermacht had already lost half of there military personal when they were on the gates of Moscow and still capable of taking it when Hitler went against his generals wishes and decided to put taking Moscow on hold and concentrate on the Caucasus oilfields, this give the Russians the time to regroup and recover eventually leading to a massive counter attack on a now seriously depleted German war machine, so now seriously think about this, half of a countries military already wiped out and they would have lost many more when taking Moscow so how could they possibly have strengthened and held on to Moscow without the soldiers to do so, even if they brought some from other fronts it would have weakened the other fronts and the Germans dont forget where already on there knees back home with very little being produced in there factories, then there was a massive allied bombing campaign on the horizon which would eventually destroy there cities as well, they were finished mun it is plain and simple, the Americans had vast resources of everything including personal and it would have been a question of when not if they defeated the Germans and liberated the Russians if the Germans had taken Moscow, and the Germans would certainly have managed that before they completely fell apart.
The thing is, some of your assertions are way off. Germany did not lose 50% of her army in Russia, they lost 50% of the army sent into Russia, they still had several million soldiers in Europe. In 1941 there were over 8.1 million in the Wehrmacht, they lost well over ONE million in Russia up until Moscow, they lost the majority after Moscow when they were being beaten back. if they had taken Moscow and subjugated Russia they may not have lost another 3 million. So, if (hypothetically) Hitler had beaten Russia, he would have had a couple of million extra men and Russia's vast resources. We know what did happen but we cannot possibly be sure what would have happened had Germany beaten Russia quickly.
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 20:01 - Jul 30 by Catullus
The thing is, some of your assertions are way off. Germany did not lose 50% of her army in Russia, they lost 50% of the army sent into Russia, they still had several million soldiers in Europe. In 1941 there were over 8.1 million in the Wehrmacht, they lost well over ONE million in Russia up until Moscow, they lost the majority after Moscow when they were being beaten back. if they had taken Moscow and subjugated Russia they may not have lost another 3 million. So, if (hypothetically) Hitler had beaten Russia, he would have had a couple of million extra men and Russia's vast resources. We know what did happen but we cannot possibly be sure what would have happened had Germany beaten Russia quickly.
You are wrong again show me were i have said they lost 50% of her military personal in Russia i clearly state they had lost 50% in total due to fighting battles on different fronts, it is strange how they were unable to send many of this vast millions of soldiers as you say to they had on the western front to Russia when they needed them most lol, at the end of Stalingrad they had 800,000 soldiers left there, on the western front in 1942 they had appx 4 to 5million or so and another million or so scattered about in there home land and various other places, many of these were now middle aged men and teenagers so yes they were using them in 1942 through desperation and due to lack of manpower not just in 1945,so at the start and during world war 2 they had a reported top number of 13. 6 million, by 1941 more or less there total military personal had been reduced to 50%, by all means check these figures out, for eg Wikipedia clearly states the total number of German soldiers and military personal at the start of World war to the end and the highest number recorded was 13.6 then you need to look at how the numbers dwindled year by year and then take a look at the final soldiers left when there was total surrender, so are they wrong or are you wrong, there is no doubt that by 1941 to 42 Germany was a spent force but still could and should have taken Moscow as a last hurrah if Hitler had kept his nose out and left matters to his generals.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 19:42 - Jul 31 with 591 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
