History of how the Nazis were defeated

These concepts are socially constructed and have been given much weight. What are your thoughts?
Unbreakable
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 113
Joined: February 25th, 2008, 2:40 am

History of how the Nazis were defeated

Unread post by Unbreakable » February 29th, 2008, 5:35 am



Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » April 11th, 2008, 8:19 am

Some historians argue that Germany lost the war before it ever begun. They cite Russia's troop, armor, aircraft, and munitions statistics compared to Germany's right before Germany went to war with Poland. Russia was considerably ahead of the Third Reich. What this thought fails to recognize; however, is how much better German tactics were at the time. Their ability to combine their forces and use them in new and innovative ways. No, it was Germany's bully ambassadorship with the West and invasion of the West that lost them the war.

You see the Soviet Union was always Germany's greatest concern. Initially, the Third Reich acted very shrewedly brokering a takeover of Poland with the Soviet Union where they both attacked, divided, and conquered the country in a manner that caused France and England not to come to Poland's aid (which they would have done according to their treaty with Poland Germany had attacked Poland without the assistance of the Soviet Union).

But it was a short sighted strategy for Germany. As Hitler moved west committing his forces to ongoing wars with the West, he became more and more vulnerable to an invasion from the then ideologically rabid Soviet Union looking to expand their new form of government and empire.

This is why many historians and writers agree that Germany actually lost WWII with the invasion of Poland. Because it put Germany into a vulnerable condition with regards to the Soviet Union leading to their defeat.

Germany wasn't in a good place to be honest. It's easy to think that if Hitler had taken more time to consolidate real peace with the West and engaged Austria as a friend instead of annexing the country forcibly, he would have had a chance. That he could have either worked with the West to lay waste to the Soviet Union or done it himself. The problem with this is that the West was not unfriendly to the Soviet Union before WWII and would have warned them but not participated with any design to take them over. And if Hitler had gone it alone, he would have messed up the invasion of Russia anyways (exactly what he did do) as he wasn't the military strategist he thought himself to be. Blundering in Napolean's footsteps was not very shrewd.

In context, you would have to blame Hitler and his advisors for executing what amounted to a shrewd short term strategy but a fatally flawed long term one as the ultimate reason why Germany lost the war.

EmperorPenguin
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1155
Joined: February 21st, 2006, 3:01 am

Unread post by EmperorPenguin » April 11th, 2008, 9:03 am

I hate when people post links to videos without a summary of their own or a link to articles without posting their own opinion. But on the flip side of that I hate when Invincible posts his opinion on anything so it's a catch 22. That being said, I won't click the links out of fear of being Rick Roll'd.

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 11th, 2008, 9:46 am

Germany was the strongest country at the start of World War 2. There is no denying this. By the middle and then end of the war, the Soviet Union took it's place. It had more men, vehicles and aircraft then Germany and America combined. Germany, in most of the time, the reason for it's constant success when it comes to the kill for kill ratio of let's say Germany to the Soviet Union, if Germany lost 500,000 troops, the Soviets lost a million. This is also present with America. The Germans back then used quality over quantity, just like the USA's military today. Of course back then even though they killed more, they got defeated because the Soviet Union and America used numbers. 10 to 1 always wins, and history has thaught us that a million times. For some who want to disprove me by using the Ancient Macedonians and Persian thing and how we defeated them with an army of only tens of thousands, while they had hundreds of thousands to millions, we had strategy and tactics while they ran like crazy and fought with only wave and massed attacks, no other strategy. Every country has strategy and tactics today, and in the combination of that with quanitity, quality loses.

The Soviet Union alone could've defeated Nazi Germany without the USA's help, and it was showing signs of it after battles like Stalingrad.

The 6 most lethal battles in history, as well as all being major operations, all fought on the eastern front, all won by the Soviet Union.

Battle of Stalingrad - Soviet victory
Battle of Berlin - Soviet victory
Siege of Leningrad - Soviet victory
Battle of Smolensk - Soviet victory
Battle of Kursk - Soviet victory
Battle of the Dnieper river - Soviet victory

In terms of mentality, the USA is the same as Nazi Germany today. It chooses quality over quantity, and it chooses to make everything sound as much smart as possible, make them seem superior, by using the age of tactic of confusion through complex structures.

A police for everything, a deparment for everything, each having sub departments of all kinds.

The more polished you make it look the better it is, right? As we see with the US government's websites... :roll:

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 11th, 2008, 9:49 am

In fact, the Warsaw Pact could have run over NATO countries in only a few weeks as Russia could do the same now with Europe, only back then then the Soviet Union outnumbered NATO 10 to 1, while now it has to gain those numbers again.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » April 11th, 2008, 12:42 pm

flame_guards_member1 wrote:Germany, in most of the time, the reason for it's constant success when it comes to the kill for kill ratio of let's say Germany to the Soviet Union, if Germany lost 500,000 troops, the Soviets lost a million. This is also present with America. The Germans back then used quality over quantity, just like the USA's military today.
It was even worse then that. Germany lost about 8 Million Soldiers in the whole war, on all fronts. Russia lost between 17-20 Million exclusively on the german front. So the kill ratio would be maybe 1 German soldier against 4 or 5 dead russian soldiers.
In my opinion that is owed to the fact, that between 1941 and 1943 the Germans were superior in every sense to the russians and slaughtered all of them without mercy.
Stalin did a big mistake when he had all his experienced Generals removed or killed. He was paranoid that they would try to remove him. When the Germans attacked they dealt with a bunch of rookies with a completely disorganised army which was technologically behind. That changed with the time when the Russians got more experience and developed better weapons, like the Katyushas, Ak 47s or T 72s. Those and the sheer endless supply of soldiers fucked us Germans up.
Well in the first place Hitlers Insanity/Megalomania fucked us up, but you know what i mean.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » April 11th, 2008, 1:36 pm

Also Technologically Germany stayed pretty much ahead of everyone until the end of the war. They developed Messerschmitt Airplanes, Werner von Braun developed long Range missiles and the NASA later on hired him and based their constructions on his works. Also Allied forces had orders to never attack certain German Tanks, like the Tiger 2, unless they outnumbered them by 5 to 1 because of their superior firepower.

Unbreakable
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 113
Joined: February 25th, 2008, 2:40 am

Unread post by Unbreakable » April 12th, 2008, 2:12 am

http://www.germanwarmachine.com/campaig ... nfront.htm

"Recognizing the immense physical and mental demands that Barbarossa would place on the ordinary German soldier, the High Command for the first time systematically inculcated its troops with the Nazi "world view." Junior commanders and the euphemistically termed "welfare officers" devoted many hours in both seminars and informal discussions to instilling Nazi values in their soldiers in order to condition them with "eastern hardness" in preparation for the appallingly brutal campaign Hitler intended to unleash. To reinforce this process, an incessant barrage of propaganda incited the troops to behave in a bestial fashion against the "sub-human" Slavic enemy."

"The Germans insinuated that, given the Soviet failure to sign the Geneva Convention, their enemy would employ appalling "Asiatic" standards of warfare, and used this pretext to justify their own preparations for the brutal war that they had always intended to unleash."

A war without mercy
"On July 16, 1941, Hitler stated that "the order of the day" in the Axis-occupied East would be "first, conquer, second, rule, and third, exploit."

"The most startling aspect of Barbarossa was that the Axis forces, despite achieving some of the most spectacular tactical victories in the history of warfare, failed to achieve a decisive strategic defeat over the Soviets. During the 166-day period between June and December 1941, the Germans advanced up to 802 miles (1,290 km) on a 995-mile (1600-km) front and inflicted 4.3 million casualties on the Red Army, destroying the entire Soviet ground forces in the western Soviet Union 1.3 times over! Yet despite these achievements, in mid-December 1941 the German Army faced a Red Army more powerful than it had been when Barbarossa commenced on June 21, 1941. This unpleasant reality was exacerbated by the fact that these German victories had only been achieved at painful - and often irreplaceable - cost. By December 5, 1941, for example, the German Army had lost 87 percent (or 3,370) of the original 3,854 AFVs committed on June 22, and 26 percent (780,000) of the 3.05 million troops committed."

The Russians call it "Great Patriotic War." From 1941 until mid-1943, the Red Army confronted 80-90% of Germany's total armed forces. At no time in the whole war did it ever face less than 60%, not even during the heaviest fighting on the Western Front (Normandy, Arnhem, or the "Battle of the Bulge"). Germany's Axis partners on the Russian Front included not only the Italians but the whole armed forces of Romania, Hungary, and Finland, as well as contingents of pro-fascist volunteers from all over Europe. 80% of Germany's combat losses were sustained on the Russian front, inflicted by Soviet forces equipped almost entirely with Soviet-made weapons. Had Germany honored the 1939 Non-Aggression Pact, or had the Red Army been defeated, the Anglo-American forces would have faced an enemy that was 4 times, that is 400%, stronger than it was historically.

"Operation Barbarossa—as this campaign is famously called—was arguably the greatest land campaign mankind has ever fought. Hitler named his assault after the 12th-century Frederick I Barbarossa, an emperor of the First Reich. Although he succeeded in capturing almost 40 percent of European Russia, Hitler was defeated there."
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Stalingrad ... 300&sr=1-2


here is an interesting read which is a taped conversation between hitler and the military elader of Finland at the time discussing the war:
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=33564

"On the June 4 1942, it was Finnish Field Marshal Carl Gustav Mannerheim's 75th birthday. Adolf Hitler took this occasion to fly to Finland to congratulate Mannerheim in person and to discuss many important issues regarding how Barbarossa and the war in general were going.

"What makes this recording so special is that it's the only recording in the world where Hitler speaks in his normal way without readily made speeches. During the filming of German movie Der Untergang, which tells about Hitler's last days, Bruno Ganz, the actor who played Hitler, listened the recording to learn Hitlers speaking style.

Hitler: ...a very serious danger, perhaps the most serious one - it's whole extent we can only now judge. We did not ourselves understand - just how strong this state [the USSR] was armed.

Mannerheim: No, we hadn't thought of this.

Hitler: No, I too, no.

Mannerheim: During the Winter War - during the Winter War we had not even thought of this. Of course...

Hitler: (Interrupting) Yes.

Mannerheim: But so, how they - in reality - and now there is no doubt all they had - what they had in their stocks!

Hitler: Absolutely, This is - they had the most immense armaments that, uh, people could imagine. Well - if somebody had told me that a country - with...(Hitler is interrupted by the sound of a door opening and closing.) If somebody had told me a nation could start with 35,000 tanks, then I'd have said: "You are crazy!"

Mannerheim: Thirty-five?

Hitler: Thirty-five thousand tanks.

Another Voice In Background: Thirty-five thousand! Yes!

Hitler: We have destroyed - right now - more than 34,000 tanks. If someone had told me this, I'd have said: "You!" If you are one of my generals had stated that any nation has 35,000 tanks I'd have said: "You, my good sir, you see everything twice or ten times. You are crazy; you see ghosts." This I would have deemed possible. I told you earlier we found factories, one of them at Kramatorskaja, for example, Two years ago there were just a couple hundred [tanks]. We didn't know anything. Today, there is a tank plant, where - during the first shift a little more than 30,000, and 'round the clock a little more than 60,000, workers would have labored - a single tank plant! A gigantic factory! Masses of workers who certainly, lived like animals and...

Another Voice In Background: (Interrupting) In the Donets area?

Hitler: In the Donets area. (Background noises from the rattling of cups and plates over the exchange.)

Mannerheim: Well, if you keep in mind they had almost 20 years, almost 25 years of - freedom to arm themselves...

Hitler: (Interrupting quietly) It was unbelievable.

Mannerheim: And everything - everything spent on armament.

Hitler: Only on armament.

Mannerheim: Only on armament!

Hitler: (Sighs) Only - well, it is - as I told your president [Ryte] before - I had no idea of it. If I had an idea - then I would have been even more difficult for me, but I would have taken the decision [to invade] anyhow, because - there was no other possibility. It was - certain, already in the winter of '39/ '40, that the war had to begin. I had only this nightmare - but there is even more! Because a war on two fronts - would have been impossible - that would have broken us. Today, we see more clearly - than we saw at that time - it would have broken us. And my whole - I originally wanted to - already in the fall of '39 I wanted to conduct the campaign in the west - on the continuously bad weather we experienced hindered us.

Our whole armament - you know, was - is a pure good weather armament. It is very capable, very good, but it is unfortunately just a good-weather armament. We have seen this in the war. Our weapons naturally were made for the west, and we all thought, and this was true 'till that time, uh, it was the opinion from the earliest times: you cannot wage war in winter. And we too, have, the German tanks, they weren't tested, for example, to prepare them for winter war. Instead we conducted trials to prove it was impossible to wage war in winter. That is a different starting point [than the Soviet's]. In the fall of 1939 we always faced the question. I desperately wanted to attack, and I firmly believed we could finish France in six weeks.

However, we faced the question of whether we could move at all - it was raining continuously. And I know the French area myself very well and I too could not ignore the opinions, of many of my generals that, we - probably - would not have had the élan, that our tank arm would not have been, effective, that our air force could not been effective from our airfields because of the rain.

I know northern France myself. You know, I served in the Great War for four years. And - so the delay happened. If I had in '39 eliminated France, then world history would have changed. But I had to wait 'till 1940, and unfortunately it wasn't possible before May. Only on the 10th of May was the first nice day - and on the 10th of May I immediately attacked. I gave the order to attack on the 10th on the 8th. And - then we had to, conduct this huge transfer of our divisions from the west to the east.

First the occupation of - then we had the task in Norway - at the same time we faced - I can frankly say it today - a grave misfortune, namely the - weakness of, Italy. Because of - first, the situation in North Africa, then, second, because of the situation in Albania and Greece - a very big misfortune. We had to help. This meant for us, with one small stoke, first - the splitting of our air force, splitting our tank force, while at the same time we were preparing, the, tank arm in the east. We had to hand over - with one stroke, two divisions, two whole divisions and a third was then added - and we had to replace continuous, very severe, losses there. It was - bloody fighting in the desert.

This all naturally was inevitable, you see. I had a conversation with Molotov [Soviet Minister] at that time, and it was absolutely certain that Molotov departed with the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed him with the decision to - impossible, to forestall him. There was - this was the only - because the demands that man brought up were clearly aimed to rule, Europe in the end. (Practically whispering here.) Then I have him - not publicly...(fades out).

Already in the fall of 1940 we continuously faced the question, uh: shall we, consider a break up [in relations with the USSR]? At that time, I advised the Finnish government, to - negotiate and, to gain time and, to act dilatory in this matter - because I always feared - that Russia suddenly would attack Romania in the late fall - and occupy the petroleum wells, and we would have not been ready in the late fall of 1940. If Russia indeed had taken Romanian petroleum wells, than Germany would have been lost. It would have required - just 60 Russian divisions to handle that matter.

In Romania we had of course - at that time - no major units. The Romanian government had turned to us only recently - and what we did have there was laughable. They only had to occupy the petroleum wells. Of course, with our weapons I could not start a, war in September or October. That was out of the question. Naturally, the transfer to the east wasn't that far advanced yet. Of course, the units first had to reconsolidate in the west. First the armaments had to be taken care of because we too had - yes, we also had losses in our campaign in the west. It would have been impossible to attack - before the spring of 19, 41. And if the Russians at that time - in the fall of 1940 - had occupied Romania - taken the petroleum wells, then we would have been, helpless in 1941.

Another Voice In Background: Without petroleum...

Hitler: (Interrupting) We had huge German production: however, the demands of the air force, our Panzer divisions - they are really huge. It is level of consumption that surpasses the imagination. And without the addition of four to five million tons of Romanian petroleum, we could not have fought the war - and would have had to let it be - and that was my big worry. Therefore I aspired to, bridge the period of negotiations 'till we would be strong enough to, counter those extortive demands [from Moscow] because - those demands were simply naked extortion's. They were extortion's. The Russians knew we were tied up in the west. They could really extort everything from us. Only when Molotov visited - then - I told him frankly that the demands, their numerous demands, weren't acceptable to us. With that the negotiations came to an abrupt end that same morning.

There were four topics. The one topic that, involved Finland was, the, freedom to protect themselves from the Finnish threat, he said. You do not want to tell me Finland threatens you! But he said: "In Finland it is - they who take action against the, friends, of the Soviet Union. They would [take action] against [our] society, against us - they would continuously, persecute us and, a great power cannot be threatened by a minor country."

I said: "Your, existence isn't threatened by Finland! That is, you don't mean to tell me..."

Mannerheim: (Interrupting) Laughable!

Hitler: "...that your existence is threatened by Finland?" Well [he said] there was a moral - threat being made against a great power, and what Finland was doing, that was a moral - a threat to their moral existence. Then I told him we would not accept a further war in the Baltic area as passive spectators. In reply he asked me how we viewed our position in, Romania. You know, we had given them a guarantee. [He wanted to know] if that guarantee was directed against Russia as well? And that time I told him: "I don't think it is directed at you, because I don't think you have the intention of attacking Romania. You have always stated that Bessarabia is yours, but that you have - never stated that you want to attack Romania!"

"Yes," he told me, but he wanted to know more precisely if this guarantee...(A door opens and the recording ends.)

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » April 12th, 2008, 3:48 am

Sentenza wrote:
flame_guards_member1 wrote:Germany, in most of the time, the reason for it's constant success when it comes to the kill for kill ratio of let's say Germany to the Soviet Union, if Germany lost 500,000 troops, the Soviets lost a million. This is also present with America. The Germans back then used quality over quantity, just like the USA's military today.
It was even worse then that. Germany lost about 8 Million Soldiers in the whole war, on all fronts. Russia lost between 17-20 Million exclusively on the german front.
I have to correct myself. I had the numbers all messed up. Germany lost 3.2 Million and Russia 13.6 Million soldiers. You do the math.

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » April 12th, 2008, 10:42 am

Good post Unbreakable.

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 12th, 2008, 2:28 pm

Sentenza wrote:
flame_guards_member1 wrote:Germany, in most of the time, the reason for it's constant success when it comes to the kill for kill ratio of let's say Germany to the Soviet Union, if Germany lost 500,000 troops, the Soviets lost a million. This is also present with America. The Germans back then used quality over quantity, just like the USA's military today.
It was even worse then that. Germany lost about 8 Million Soldiers in the whole war, on all fronts. Russia lost between 17-20 Million exclusively on the german front. So the kill ratio would be maybe 1 German soldier against 4 or 5 dead russian soldiers.
In my opinion that is owed to the fact, that between 1941 and 1943 the Germans were superior in every sense to the russians and slaughtered all of them without mercy.
Stalin did a big mistake when he had all his experienced Generals removed or killed. He was paranoid that they would try to remove him. When the Germans attacked they dealt with a bunch of rookies with a completely disorganised army which was technologically behind. That changed with the time when the Russians got more experience and developed better weapons, like the Katyushas, Ak 47s or T 72s. Those and the sheer endless supply of soldiers #%@& us Germans up.
Well in the first place Hitlers Insanity/Megalomania #%@& us up, but you know what i mean.
Whoa whoa whoa. Back off a fuckin' minute here, one minute. The USSR didn't lose 17-20 million soldiers. You got that mistaken. They lost 10,700,000 soldiers and 11,400,000 civilians, along with an extra 1,000,000 holocaust victims according to Wikipedia and their sources. So overall they lost less than 11 million soldiers compared to Germany losing about 5.5 million soldiers according to Wikipedia and their sources.

So my estimate of 2 Soviet soldiers for every 1 German soldier was right. Also, the Germans were more experianced, better armed and equiped, and much superior to the Soviet soldiers in all aspects except numbers. Most of the Soviet soldiers were very poorly trained due to the lack of time for preperation and basic training, and most of them were very young with no military experiance whatsoever.

As you said, on all fronts. On the Eastern front, the Germans lost the most men, where in Stalingrad the entire 6th Army of the German Heer was destroyed. The Soviets were alone there, while the Germans had the Italians, Romanians and Hungarians to aid them in battle, yet the Soviets defeated them. Also, by the time of the Soviet counteroffensive, each side had more than a million soldiers, with the Axis having 1,011,000 men and the Soviets having 1,103,000 men, both had more than 10,000 artillery, and even more the Soviets had more tanks and aircraft than the Axis, the Soviet tanks were more for numbers than for quality while the Axis tanks were the opposite thus stronger and harder to take down, and the Luftwaffe had more experianced fighters from the constant bombing of Stalingrad before. Overall, by the time of the Soviet counteroffensive, they were pretty evenly matched.

Even though the Soviets lost more, they still won. The Russians could lose more now if it comes to the USA, but they'd still win alot of battles, as we saw with the Soviets and Germany.

But then again we exclude the snipers, most of whom had the most kills were snipers from the USSR, and according to sniper central:

Name - Kills

Ivan Sidorenko - 500
Nikolay Yakovlevich Ilyin - 496
Kulbertinov - 487
V. N. Pchelintsev - 456
Mikhail Budenkov - 437
Fyodor Matveevich Okhlopkov - 429
Fyodor Djachenko - 425
Vasilij Ivanovich Golosov - 422
Afanasy Gordienko - 417
Stepan Petrenko - 412
Vasili Zaitsev - 400
Semen D. Nomokonov - 367
Abdukhani Idrisov - 349
Philipp Yakovlevich Rubaho - 346

And alot others from the USSR...

Also, Katushyas were apart of the conflict, yes. Although AK47's weren't developed until 1947, and were put in service in 1949. Also, I think you meant T-34's which were a little bit bigger than an M4 Sherman tank the USA used, based on the same principal of simplicity and mass numbers. Their armour wasn't that tough as much as the Panzer tanks but the round was pretty much the same, which meant the Panzer can take a bigger beating but still be overcome by 5-10 T-34's. The T-72 was in service from 1973 on. Your way off there.

The primary weapons of the Soviet soldiers were the Tokarev TT pistol, PPSh-41 submachine gun which fired at a fast rate, overheat too fast, had the same round as the pistol which meant it was weak, and unless fired in bursts it was a pretty inaccurate weapon, which it was anyways. They had the Mosin-Nagant M91/30 bolt action rifle as their primary rifle.

By the end of the war, the Soviets didn't even have an assault rifle such as the Germans by 1944, which was the StG44, the same rifle the Soviets used it's design to make the AK47 out of.

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 12th, 2008, 2:33 pm

Sentenza wrote:
Sentenza wrote:
flame_guards_member1 wrote:Germany, in most of the time, the reason for it's constant success when it comes to the kill for kill ratio of let's say Germany to the Soviet Union, if Germany lost 500,000 troops, the Soviets lost a million. This is also present with America. The Germans back then used quality over quantity, just like the USA's military today.
It was even worse then that. Germany lost about 8 Million Soldiers in the whole war, on all fronts. Russia lost between 17-20 Million exclusively on the german front.
I have to correct myself. I had the numbers all messed up. Germany lost 3.2 Million and Russia 13.6 Million soldiers. You do the math.
It's impossible for Germany to lose that little against so many major countries. They lost 5 million minimum as I said, most on the Eastern front, so yes maybe about 3.2 million on the Eastern front. Your off about 3 million on the USSR's terms.. You also exclude Italy, Romania, Hungary and other forces, including German allied USSR based forces such as the Russian Liberation Front.

Besides that, most of Germany's soldiers are better armed, equipped, and definetly better experianced and trained. So it's obvious they'll lose this little and Soviets lose this much.

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 12th, 2008, 2:34 pm

flame_guards_member1 wrote:
Sentenza wrote:
Sentenza wrote:
flame_guards_member1 wrote:Germany, in most of the time, the reason for it's constant success when it comes to the kill for kill ratio of let's say Germany to the Soviet Union, if Germany lost 500,000 troops, the Soviets lost a million. This is also present with America. The Germans back then used quality over quantity, just like the USA's military today.
It was even worse then that. Germany lost about 8 Million Soldiers in the whole war, on all fronts. Russia lost between 17-20 Million exclusively on the german front.
I have to correct myself. I had the numbers all messed up. Germany lost 3.2 Million and Russia 13.6 Million soldiers. You do the math.
It's impossible for Germany to lose that little against so many major countries. They lost 5 million minimum as I said, most on the Eastern front, so yes maybe about 3.2 million on the Eastern front. Your off about 3 million on the USSR's terms.. You also exclude Italy, Romania, Hungary and other forces, including German allied USSR based forces such as the Russian Liberation Front.

Besides that, most of Germany's soldiers are better armed, equipped, and definetly better experianced and trained. So it's obvious they'll lose this little and Soviets lose this much.
But could have they won against the Soviet Union without facing Great Britain or the USA at the same time? Not a chance. This was already a clear and visable sign after battles like Stalingrad. The USSR won most of the major battles on the Eastern Front.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » April 12th, 2008, 5:45 pm

flame_guards_member1 wrote:
Sentenza wrote:
Sentenza wrote:
flame_guards_member1 wrote:Germany, in most of the time, the reason for it's constant success when it comes to the kill for kill ratio of let's say Germany to the Soviet Union, if Germany lost 500,000 troops, the Soviets lost a million. This is also present with America. The Germans back then used quality over quantity, just like the USA's military today.
It was even worse then that. Germany lost about 8 Million Soldiers in the whole war, on all fronts. Russia lost between 17-20 Million exclusively on the german front.
I have to correct myself. I had the numbers all messed up. Germany lost 3.2 Million and Russia 13.6 Million soldiers. You do the math.
It's impossible for Germany to lose that little against so many major countries. They lost 5 million minimum as I said, most on the Eastern front, so yes maybe about 3.2 million on the Eastern front. Your off about 3 million on the USSR's terms.. You also exclude Italy, Romania, Hungary and other forces, including German allied USSR based forces such as the Russian Liberation Front.

Besides that, most of Germany's soldiers are better armed, equipped, and definetly better experianced and trained. So it's obvious they'll lose this little and Soviets lose this much.
I have never been good with numbers. I sucked at math :lol: :lol:
BUT, here are a few lists of casualties in WW2

http://www.waffenhq.de/specials/verluste.html

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second

Both sources say:

Germany: 3.5M

Germany: 3,250,000

U.S.S.R.: 14,012,000

USSR: 10.0M

total death tolls (including civilians):

Germany: 5.5M

USSR: 20.0M


The rest of the Axis casualties was made up of what you probably said, Romanians, Italians etc.
Russia didnt fight anyone else but Germany in the war. When the war was almost over they declared war on japan and invaded some northern japanese islands which they still fight over, but there were no major battles.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » April 12th, 2008, 5:48 pm

flame_guards_member1 wrote: The USSR won most of the major battles on the Eastern Front.
Until 1942/43 the USSR was raped by the Germans. They lost every major battle. After that (especially Stalingrad was a turning point) they raped us back and won every major battle.

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 13th, 2008, 3:56 am

Tell me, what major battles on the Eastern Front against the Soviets occoured before 1942???

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » April 13th, 2008, 9:54 am

Most of them are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Fr ... _War_II%29
flame_guards_member1 wrote:Tell me, what major battles on the Eastern Front against the Soviets occoured before 1942???

Unbreakable
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 113
Joined: February 25th, 2008, 2:40 am

Unread post by Unbreakable » April 13th, 2008, 1:51 pm

Well there used to be a forum I visited called Russian military zone/forum and site claled Russian abttlefield:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/116312/
Here is the new one:
http://www.battlefield.ru/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?lang=en

They had interesting statistics on kill ratios and sucgh most German Generals lied abotu the small German casualities and didnt take into account deserters or those missing in aciton well. A guy named Kirvosheev did an extensibve study on soviet vs German military loses:
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00051.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoriy_Krivosheev

Unbreakable
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 113
Joined: February 25th, 2008, 2:40 am

Unread post by Unbreakable » April 13th, 2008, 1:57 pm


oXJmAuPs2005Xo
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 613
Joined: March 10th, 2005, 10:44 pm
Location: Cincinnati
Contact:

Unread post by oXJmAuPs2005Xo » April 13th, 2008, 2:27 pm

who cares how the nazis were defeated they were a threat that needed to be destroyed and they are now and thats all that mattered they do not deserve to have a history.

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 13th, 2008, 7:31 pm

I could say the same about the USA but that would get me into trouble. :D

oXJmAuPs2005Xo
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 613
Joined: March 10th, 2005, 10:44 pm
Location: Cincinnati
Contact:

Unread post by oXJmAuPs2005Xo » April 13th, 2008, 11:31 pm

kitte kudasai flames guard san gaijin no tomorika

oXJmAuPs2005Xo
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 613
Joined: March 10th, 2005, 10:44 pm
Location: Cincinnati
Contact:

Unread post by oXJmAuPs2005Xo » April 13th, 2008, 11:32 pm

i love the usa's people in the streetz but the rest of this country has got shit massively twisted

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 14th, 2008, 12:15 am

oXJmAuPs2005Xo wrote:kitte kudasai flames guard san gaijin no tomorika
What?

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 14th, 2008, 12:15 am

oXJmAuPs2005Xo wrote:i love the usa's people in the streetz but the rest of this country has got shit massively twisted
So you love gangs?

oXJmAuPs2005Xo
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 613
Joined: March 10th, 2005, 10:44 pm
Location: Cincinnati
Contact:

Unread post by oXJmAuPs2005Xo » April 14th, 2008, 5:58 pm

there you go talkin off the tip of your tounge what makes you street culture only has to do with gangs how big of a moron are you i think you seriously need to get off this forum and stop watching tv that propaganda shit has got you fucked up what do you think the bases of hiphop culture is captain obvious... not everyone in the streets are gang bangers they jus come from a culture that has that. thats all, i dont like people who try and speak knowledge on something they have no idea about and you just graduated from street stupid 101.

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 14th, 2008, 9:31 pm

oXJmAuPs2005Xo wrote:there you go talkin off the tip of your tounge what makes you street culture only has to do with gangs how big of a moron are you i think you seriously need to get off this forum and stop watching tv that propaganda shit has got you #%@& up what do you think the bases of hiphop culture is captain obvious... not everyone in the streets are gang bangers they jus come from a culture that has that. thats all, i dont like people who try and speak knowledge on something they have no idea about and you just graduated from street stupid 101.
Ok half of that I have no idea what you said, and no I don't know anything about the streets because I don't want to. No need to insult me. It was a simple question but nevermind. :lol:

And also:
kitte kudasai flames guard san gaijin no tomorika
What? Is that Japanese or Finnish or something?

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 14th, 2008, 9:34 pm

oXJmAuPs2005Xo wrote:kitte kudasai flames guard san gaijin no tomorika
the ti ebam majkata u pickata pedersko kopile prokleto the ti ebam sestra, zemija i familija dibelo odvrtno kopile kako partal lices gzo ti se gleda so tia gaki picka ti majcina ebana u site 3 dupki.

Translation:

Translate it for me please.

oXJmAuPs2005Xo
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 613
Joined: March 10th, 2005, 10:44 pm
Location: Cincinnati
Contact:

Unread post by oXJmAuPs2005Xo » April 15th, 2008, 4:36 pm

damo mada jiyozu jiya arimasen kuso atama ga saiyajin kami no furui chikara

flame_guards_member1
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 557
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 11:19 am

Unread post by flame_guards_member1 » April 17th, 2008, 12:33 am

Kurac. :D

oXJmAuPs2005Xo
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 613
Joined: March 10th, 2005, 10:44 pm
Location: Cincinnati
Contact:

Unread post by oXJmAuPs2005Xo » April 17th, 2008, 2:30 am

chin chin dai suki dare desuka gaijin?

Post Reply

Return to “Race and Ethnicity, Racial Relations & Racism”