Originally Posted by Kunikov

Internet sites are not a valid source. You've made a fallacy in only providing the numbers for what the US sent via Lend Lease while ignoring all that England sent, you also ignored everything that the Soviet Union made during the War, which would put your numbers into a context. Sorry, I don't waste more time than that on ignorant fools. As for Overy, I'm reading "Why the Allies Won" right now, an author who claims Model headed the 9th Panzer Army at Kursk, that two Panzer Divisions at Kursk had around 1,000 tanks, or that the T-34 had a crew of two, is not one to be trusted with any detailed information.

Jesus, listen to yourself..."a fallacy in only providing the numbers for what the US sent via Lend Lease while ignoring all that England sent" and then ignoring the sum total yourself. You are the fallacy. And, you are the "ignorant fool". But, different from you, I love wasting my time on "ignorant fools".

Originally Posted by Kunikov

The only internet site I would trust would be one which has the archives as its source. Wikipedia is not that site. Lend Lease was not felt in significant amounts until 1943 by which time all three turning points had already occurred on the Eastern Front. It helped, it was not critical or decisive.

Look Kunikov...and listen to your own words..."Lend Lease was not felt in significant amounts until 1943". Lord have mercy, 1943 was a sort of important year.

[quote=Del Boy;377658]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

"compiled and published by a former Soviet general, Grigoriy Krivosheev. I attach a link to a table which I invite you to read. The numbers can only be described as staggering."



Impressive figures, Doppleganger, but your conclusions have to questioned, because you conclude that EVERYresult was brought about by Russian LUCK. It then follows that on every score, the Germans were UNLUCKY.

That has to say something, has to tell us something, about aims, ambitions and strategies. Bad moves are not unlucky moves, chess doesn't work that way. Remember that usually, in all things, we make our own luck.

Just a point that occurred to me on following this thread.






And why on earth do you and Ollie adopt such insulting personal attacks when they are unsolicited. Can you not frame your disagreements with Kunikov in a more respectful manner? Do his opinions not count?

The guy (and you for that matter) attacks me on a continual basis, like I am some kind of child playing in the garden. I have only returned the compliment. Being hard is ok. And, when we are at it, I think that I am probably the only REAL historian in this whole place. I get paid for writing history...how about yourselves? In any case, Kunikov will only get respect when he/or she deserves it.

[quote=Ollie Garchy;377687][quote=Del Boy;377658]
"The guy (and you for that matter) attacks me on a continual basis, like I am some kind of child playing in the garden."


Not at all, you are obviously good at what you do, but I think you suffer from just what you accuse Kunikov of, as far as perception is concerned.

Ollie - your verisimilitude is suspect again. In fact, I do not attack you on a continual basis. In the past, on highly sensitive matters I have been re-active, returning like for like.

In your case - you mix pertinent points with highly personal and insulting slagging, which in most cases is completely unnecessary in making your point, and in fact demeans it.

I am not even attacking you here, I am trying to be helpful to you and the debate.

On a very general point, and without malice, I must respond to your remark regarding 'historians', in that David Irving, as an example, is a 'historian'; it is not always complimentary. A person may be fine at recording historical references, but very poor at interpreting situations, and conclusions. Also, his temperament may be a flaw.

Chill a little, my friend, leave the emotional stuff to fools like me.

You may lay claim to being the only true historian here, but I can lay claim to being the only emotional fool here. We don't need another one.

Incidentally, I agree that 'hard' debate, rough debate, tough debate, is fine, but it needs to add to your points, not diminish them.

I look forward to more from Kunikov and yourself .

[quote=Del Boy;377737][quote=Ollie Garchy;377687]

Originally Posted by Del Boy

"The guy (and you for that matter) attacks me on a continual basis, like I am some kind of child playing in the garden."


Not at all, you are obviously good at what you do, but I think you suffer from just what you accuse Kunikov of, as far as perception is concerned.

Ollie - your verisimilitude is suspect again. In fact, I do not attack you on a continual basis. In the past, on highly sensitive matters I have been re-active, returning like for like.

In your case - you mix pertinent points with highly personal and insulting slagging, which in most cases is completely unnecessary in making your point, and in fact demeans it.

I am not even attacking you here, I am trying to be helpful to you and the debate.

On a very general point, and without malice, I must respond to your remark regarding 'historians', in that David Irving, as an example, is a 'historian'; it is not always complimentary. A person may be fine at recording historical references, but very poor at interpreting situations, and conclusions. Also, his temperament may be a flaw.

Chill a little, my friend, leave the emotional stuff to fools like me.

You may lay claim to being the only true historian here, but I can lay claim to being the only emotional fool here. We don't need another one.

I will take your advice, Del, and chill a bit. One thing, though. David Irving is not an historian. He is a journalist who wrote history at one point in his life. He once wrote good history, but he turned himself into a pumpkin by attaching himself to Hitler.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The table I linked to was taken directly from Krivosheev...

Once again, how is it that you can quote Krivosheev and then write something like the following: "I am quoting this from memory but I believe that for every 1 British or American soldier who died in WW2, 20 German soldiers died and 85 Russian soldiers died."

Are you really that blind that you cannot see the contradiction and ignorance of that statement? Worse so since you have something to look at when it comes to Soviet casualties.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

Look Kunikov...and listen to your own words..."Lend Lease was not felt in significant amounts until 1943". Lord have mercy, 1943 was a sort of important year.

By 1943 the war was decided, as I have already pointed out, Lend Lease helped bring the war to a quicker end, it was not decisive.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

The guy (and you for that matter) attacks me on a continual basis, like I am some kind of child playing in the garden. I have only returned the compliment. Being hard is ok. And, when we are at it, I think that I am probably the only REAL historian in this whole place. I get paid for writing history...how about yourselves? In any case, Kunikov will only get respect when he/or she deserves it.

And what have you written that you claim to be a 'real' historian?

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

Jesus, listen to yourself..."a fallacy in only providing the numbers for what the US sent via Lend Lease while ignoring all that England sent" and then ignoring the sum total yourself. You are the fallacy. And, you are the "ignorant fool". But, different from you, I love wasting my time on "ignorant fools".

At this point I doubt you understand what a fallacy is. I have committed none as I have offered up neither argument or data, rather I have address your fallacies and lack of contextual input for the data that you have copy and pasted from wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Once again, how is it that you can quote Krivosheev and then write something like the following: "I am quoting this from memory but I believe that for every 1 British or American soldier who died in WW2, 20 German soldiers died and 85 Russian soldiers died."

Well I was quoting it from memory right? Give me a break if the numbers are off. I notice you more or less ignored the rest of my post, which is indicative of the way you like to pick and choose your arguments.

So uh yeah, almost 30 million casualties of all kinds for the Red Army in WW2. I really don't need to say any more.