D-Day didn´t save Europa from the nazis

[unmerged(11206)]

Re: Re: D-Day didn´t save Europa from the nazis

Originally posted by Suvorov
At about the same time the Allies landed in Normandy, the Red Army totally destroyed German Army Group Center, the strongest of the three Army Groups operating on the Eastern Front where most of the German forces were concentrated. I really don't see how anyone can call D-day decisive in the war against Germany. Stalingrad? Maybe. Kursk? Also a good turning point. But D-day? No way. The Soviets were already well under way by then. The war would have taken longer, but as things stood on June 5th 1944, the Germans would have lost anyway. Sorry, but those 1950s Soviet textbooks are right on this point.

Not so. The title of the thread says "Save Europe from the Nazis". Had America never entered the war, D-Day never happened, & the USSR defeated Germany all by herself, Europe certainly wouldnt have been "saved" by the USSR. One evil, brutal, murdering totalitarian master simply wouldve been replaced by another, as evidenced by what took place in Eastern Europe following Germany's collapse & lasted for the next half-century. Also hinted at by the fact that Stalin slaughtered tens of millions more than Hitler did, & over 10 million before the war even started! Ask the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, East Germans, etc., about how they were "saved" by the USSR.

So we dont even have to mention that German divisions were removed from the Battle of Kursk before it ended & sent West in anticipation of an Allied landing, or the simply enormous amounts of aid the Allies sent to the USSR. Starting in 1941, the US sent 15000 planes, 9000 tanks, 3000 AA guns, 500,000 trucks & jeeps, 5 million tons of food, etc. Meanwhile Britain kicked in over 5000 planes & 4000 tanks, & Canada sent 200,000 tons of food. Before Paulus was trapped at Stalingrad, the US & UK had sent over 6000 tanks. 14 percent of the UK's total tank production for the entire war went to the USSR, while USA sent over $12 billion worth of military aid to USSR (over 20% of Lend-Lease total).

But before we can debate all of that, you'll have to change the thread name from "'Save' Europe from the Nazis" to "Defeat the Nazis and Take Their Place as Oppressor of Europe".

 

[unmerged(9563)]

I think it depends, personally, on what d-day not happening means -- the USA and UK not vs Germany (or not wholeheartedly), or them just screwing around in Italy.

 

[unmerged(16470)]

Re: Re: Re: D-Day didn´t save Europa from the nazis

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE


So we dont even have to mention that German divisions were removed from the Battle of Kursk before it ended & sent West in anticipation of an Allied landing, or the simply enormous amounts of aid the Allies sent to the USSR. Starting in 1941, the US sent 15000 planes, 9000 tanks, 3000 AA guns, 500,000 trucks & jeeps, 5 million tons of food, etc. Meanwhile Britain kicked in over 5000 planes & 4000 tanks, & Canada sent 200,000 tons of food. Before Paulus was trapped at Stalingrad, the US & UK had sent over 6000 tanks. 14 percent of the UK's total tank production for the entire war went to the USSR, while USA sent over $12 billion worth of military aid to USSR (over 20% of Lend-Lease total).

I tot the debate was about if D-Day did not materialised, perhaps because of cool feet after dieppe, or US followed a Japan-first policy etc. Therefore, if D-Day did not happen but the war still existed, then the western invasion threat still existed. By extension of this logic, the withdrawal of divs from Russia to be stationed in France and Norway would still happen.

The thread is not about if there was no war between US/UK and Germany.....unless I misread the thread

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: D-Day didn´t save Europa from the nazis

Originally posted by Tequila_powered
I tot the debate was about if D-Day did not materialised, perhaps because of cool feet after dieppe, or US followed a Japan-first policy etc. Therefore, if D-Day did not happen but the war still existed, then the western invasion threat still existed. By extension of this logic, the withdrawal of divs from Russia to be stationed in France and Norway would still happen.

The thread is not about if there was no war between US/UK and Germany.....unless I misread the thread

Or maybe I misread the thread.

Units that were sorely needed on the Eastern Front were redeployed to the West. Also, even before Stalingrad, the US & UK had sent enormous amounts of aid to bolster up the USSR. You cant claim that this material had no effect on Soviet capability or even survival.

Even if you could, the term "save" Europe is misleading. Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur. Of course I dont wish to demean the achievements of the Russian soldier at Stalingrad & elsewhere, but the fact is the USSR didnt plan to liberate conquered territory, & proved that after the war by brutally oppressing every country she overran. The USSR was Hitler's bedmate before '41, and only the fact that we shared a common enemy made us stomach an alliance with a murderer like Stalin. You can hardly pretend that a man who killed 30 million people ever intended to "save" Europe. He wanted to enslave it.

 

[unmerged(16470)]

I undestand your point now. The word "save" is the sticking issue huh? and you are right. It not be a "save" for one brutal dictator to be replace by another.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

I think it's just a trick starting about this word "save". What Hitler had in mind for the Slavs was much worse than what Stalin could ever do to them, just because Hitler saw ALL Slavs as bugs, Stalin just the upper class of Eastern European societies.

I think most people read the thread name as: "D-day wasn't essential for the victory against Nazi Germany". Besides, I find it quite offensive, no VERY offensive, that BarbarossaHRE dares to name all these numbers of tanks, planes etc. the Western Allies sent to the USSR while the Soviet people "donated" the lives of 27 million people (yes, Mr. Barbarossa, read that number again, please!) to the fight against Nazism. An American tank being shot to pieces doesn't leave a family behind. Every German killed in the East meant one German less to take on the British/Americans/Canadians.

I hope you realize how stupid it is to downplay the Soviet wareffort in this way. Even Churchill had to agree it was the Red Army that stopped the Wehrmacht. They were Allies, right? So, the fact that the Germans had to watch their Western front is just the way it's supposed to be. BarbarossaHRE makes it sound like the withdrawel by Hitler of tank divisions at the battle of Kursk to send to other fronts is the Soviet's fault. And how many divisions were destroyed or tied up in the East that couldn't oppose the Allies in the West when D-day came? Try to look at it from another perspective, please.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by Suvorov
I think it's just a trick starting about this word "save". What Hitler had in mind for the Slavs was much worse than what Stalin could ever do to them, just because Hitler saw ALL Slavs as bugs, Stalin just the upper class of Eastern European societies.

Hate to tell you this, but Stalin saw most of the Slavs as bugs too. Not to mention pretty much everyone. One doesn't create oneself as a god without some a major superiority complex. Besides, considering that Stalin killed far more Slavs than Hitler did, I think that your statement is highly contentious.

I think most people read the thread name as: "D-day wasn't essential for the victory against Nazi Germany". Besides, I find it quite offensive, no VERY offensive, that BarbarossaHRE dares to name all these numbers of tanks, planes etc. the Western Allies sent to the USSR while the Soviet people "donated" the lives of 27 million people (yes, Mr. Barbarossa, read that number again, please!) to the fight against Nazism. An American tank being shot to pieces doesn't leave a family behind. Every German killed in the East meant one German less to take on the British/Americans/Canadians.

Cool the righteous anger. At any rate, do you find it immoral that people keep track of the amount of machinery sent to the Soviet Union?

If not for those tanks and planes which you dismiss, the 27 million deaths wouldn't have mattered, because they would have been in vain.

I hope you realize how stupid it is to downplay the Soviet wareffort in this way. Even Churchill had to agree it was the Red Army that stopped the Wehrmacht. They were Allies, right? So, the fact that the Germans had to watch their Western front is just the way it's supposed to be. BarbarossaHRE makes it sound like the withdrawel by Hitler of tank divisions at the battle of Kursk to send to other fronts is the Soviet's fault. And how many divisions were destroyed or tied up in the East that couldn't oppose the Allies in the West when D-day came? Try to look at it from another perspective, please.

In this, you are correct. The Red Army destroyed far more of the Wehrmacht than the rest of the Allies did.

However, I think it is not incorrect to say that the Soviet Union would have been overrun without Allied aid. However, the Allies would eventually beat the Germans, Eastern Front or no.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Neil
However, the Allies would eventually beat the Germans, Eastern Front or no.

Are you saying that if Hitler didn't attack the Soviet Union, Britain would defeat Germany all by itself?

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Originally posted by Neil
If not for those tanks and planes which you dismiss, the 27 million deaths wouldn't have mattered, because they would have been in vain.

I DON'T dismiss them, I just feel the deaths of 27 million is being dismissed. The Soviets did as much to save the Allies as the Allies did to save the Soviets.

Do you really think D-Day would have been succesfull with Germany just having, let's say, 50 divisions in the East, guarding the conquered territories of Eastern Europe and the Ural and the rest of the Wehrmacht in France, waiting for the invasion to come? It would have been Dieppe on a huge scale. I probably don't have to tell you that a lot went wrong in the Allied camp on 6 June 1944 and even more on the German side. If the Germans had had a lot more troops in France, D-Day would have been a complete failure! Of course, the Soviets didn't fight for the Allies, but the Allies also didn't fight for the Soviets. Both fought AGAINST Hitler.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by webbrave
Are you saying that if Hitler didn't attack the Soviet Union, Britain would defeat Germany all by itself?

Nope. Britain and the USA would. By itself, Britain couldn't defeat shit. With the full power of the US behind them, they were invincible.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Neil
Nope. Britain and the USA would. By itself, Britain couldn't defeat shit. With the full power of the US behind them, they were invincible.

not really, US wasn't committed to the war in Europe enough to fully replace the Soviet Union as the main supplier of millions upon millions of soldiers. War in Europe wasn't America's war and with the Soviet Union not involved the US would have even less of an incentive to fight there.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by Suvorov
I DON'T dismiss them, I just feel the deaths of 27 million is being dismissed. The Soviets did as much to save the Allies as the Allies did to save the Soviets.

Nobody dismisses the sacrifices made by the Soviet Union. Without the efforts of the Russian soldiers, the war would have gone on for a very long time, and been far more costly for the Allies than it was in reality. However, the simple truth of it was that the Germans could not have overrun the Allies, even if they had not attacked the Soviets. However, if the Allies had stood by, Hitler would have beaten Russia.

Do you really think D-Day would have been succesfull with Germany just having, let's say, 50 divisions in the East, guarding the conquered territories of Eastern Europe and the Ural and the rest of the Wehrmacht in France, waiting for the invasion to come? It would have been Dieppe on a huge scale. I probably don't have to tell you that a lot went wrong in the Allied camp on 6 June 1944 and even more on the German side. If the Germans had had a lot more troops in France, D-Day would have been a complete failure! Of course, the Soviets didn't fight for the Allies, but the Allies also didn't fight for the Soviets. Both fought AGAINST Hitler.

In all likelyhood, D-day would not have come until 1945, but it would have still done the trick. Only, instead of landing a mere army-sized unit, the Allies would have to hit the beaches IN FORCE. Moreover, the conflict in Italy would be enormously escalated, as would the war in Africa. It's not like the Germans would just be parking an extra 150 divisions in France, and waiting for the party to come. The Germans would still have to reinforce Rommel in Africa (which might actually be interesting, since Monty's win at El-Alamein was only because of 8-1 numerical superiority), and most importantly, Kesselring in Italy. Containing the Allies in Italy would be absolutely essential for Germany, and so you would see a fair number of German divisions shunted there. No way is Germany giving up the Alpine passes while the Wehrmacht sits idle in France.

Moreover, the larger a German formation is, the more susceptible it is to air attack. Allies rule the skies, which would be of enormous help to them.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by webbrave
not really, US wasn't committed to the war in Europe enough to fully replace the Soviet Union as the main supplier of millions upon millions of soldiers. War in Europe wasn't America's war and with the Soviet Union not involved the US would have even less of an incentive to fight there.

Except for the simple fact that Roosevelt wanted the war, and Hitler declared war on him. Moreover, I don't imagine the Allies would take 27 million deaths, since they were a lot less intensive in terms of getting their men killed than the Soviets were. You never hear any first-hand accounts of the Americans marching soldiers through minefields to clear them, with machineguns at their backs.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Originally posted by Neil
Except for the simple fact that Roosevelt wanted the war, and Hitler declared war on him. Moreover, I don't imagine the Allies would take 27 million deaths, since they were a lot less intensive in terms of getting their men killed than the Soviets were. You never hear any first-hand accounts of the Americans marching soldiers through minefields to clear them, with machineguns at their backs.

Sorry, but not even 30% of these 27 million deaths were military deaths. The other deaths are mostly civilians and POWs, who were treated a LOT worse than American POWs. Still, the death toll is quite high, I agree with you.

Besides, the war the Allies fought after D-day, was already a war against a weakened opponent, who still concentrated most of his forces in the East. Before that the war had mainly been fought in the air and at sea, where casualties are always much lower. I am NOT saying, however, the Red Army didn't waste a lot of lives, I'm just saying that the situation for the Western Allies was more beneficial, regardless of how poorly the Soviets were sometimes led.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Americans, unlike the Soviets, weren't fighting for the very survival of their country and their nation and thus were far less willing to send the troops against a superior and numerous enemy. In short, I don't see a D-day happening without the Soviet taking part in the war.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Originally posted by webbrave
Americans, unlike the Soviets, weren't fighting for the very survival of their country and their nation and thus were far less willing to send the troops against a superior and numerous enemy. In short, I don't see a D-day happening without the Soviet taking part in the war.

Good point. I would very much like to see how desperate fighting in the streets of NYC against a superior opponent would have changed American attitiudes towards the loss of lives...

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Neil
. You never hear any first-hand accounts of the Americans marching soldiers through minefields to clear them, with machineguns at their backs.

Are you saying this was a routine practice in the Red Army? Or is just one of those 'black legends' like cavalry charging tanks and the like? People like Zhukov were often very brutal to their own troops, but, cruel as it may seem, this cruelty made eventual victory possible. A totalitarian regime is willing to pay a much higher price for its survival than a democractic one.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by webbrave
Are you saying this was a routine practice in the Red Army? Or is just one of those 'black legends' like cavalry charging tanks and the like? People like Zhukov were often very brutal to their own troops, but, cruel as it may seem, this cruelty made eventual victory possible. A totalitarian regime is willing to pay a much higher price for its survival than a democractic one.

I'm not sure how routine it was, but it definately happened on several occasions. First, the Red Army would send any livestock they could find. If they couldn't find any, or ran out, in went the troops.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Neil
I'm not sure how routine it was, but it definately happened on several occasions. First, the Red Army would send any livestock they could find. If they couldn't find any, or ran out, in went the troops.

I am not aware of such a practice. However, if that is the only way out of encirclement and you have no sappers available or have no time, what would you do? Do you sarcifice the lives of a few to save many or do you just sit and wait to be killed by the Germans?

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by webbrave
Americans, unlike the Soviets, weren't fighting for the very survival of their country and their nation and thus were far less willing to send the troops against a superior and numerous enemy. In short, I don't see a D-day happening without the Soviet taking part in the war.

And yet, they did in real life. The only effect the Soviets had on D-day was that it was moved up, due to Stalin's insistance that they form a second front. No matter what, it was coming. However, the Allies would have liked to have bombed some stuff some more first. Indeed, the later D-day happened, the better it would be for the Allies, especially since late model Allied tanks were better than their German counterparts, and the US could produce them in droves. Ditto with airplanes, although if the Germans could be convinced to use the Me-262 as a fighter instead of as a bomber, it would be a formidable interceptor, until the Allies developped longer ranged jets to act as escorts.

At any rate, the Americans sent over ten million men into the war. Do you seriously expect me to believe that the only reason they did this is because the Soviets were there to absorb the bulk of the losses?