About Most decisive battle in WW2? Page 5
| || |
|View Poll Results :Most decisive battle in WW2?|
|Battle of Stalingrad||30||32.97%|
|Battle of Kursk (Operation Citadel)||12||13.19%|
|Battle of Moscow||8||8.79%|
|Battle of Leningrad||0||0%|
|Battle of El Alamein||3||3.30%|
|Operation Overlord (Battle of Normandy)||17||18.68%|
|Battle of Midway||10||10.99%|
|Voters: 91. You may not vote on this poll|
| || |
|April 29th, 2005||#41|
| || |
Conclusions: The Reconciliation of Myths and Realities
The dominant role of German source materials in shaping American perceptions of the war on the Eastern Front and the negative perception of Soviet source materials have had an indelible impact on the American image of war on the Eastern Front. What has resulted in a series of gross judgments treated as truths regarding operations in the East and Soviet (Red) Army combat performance. The gross judgments appear repeatedly in textbooks and all types of historical works, and they are persistent in the extreme. Each lies someplace between the realm of myth and reality. In summary, a few of these judgments are as follows:
- Weather repeatedly frustrated the fulfillment of German operational aims.
- Soviet forces throughout the war in virtually every operation possessed significant or overwhelming numerical superiority.
- Soviet manpower resources were inexhaustible, hence the Soviets continually ignored human losses.
- Soviet strategic and high level operational leadership was superb. However, lower level leadership (corps and below) was uniformly dismal.
- Soviet planning was rigid, and the execution of plans at every level was inflexible and unimaginative.
- Wherever possible, the Soviets relied for success on mass rather than maneuver. Envelopment operations were avoided whenever possible.
- The Soviets operated in two echelons, never cross attached units, and attacked along straight axes.
- Lend lease was critical for Soviet victory. Without it collapse might have ensured.
- Hitler was the cause of virtually all German defeats. Army expertise produced earlier victories (a variation of the post World War I stab in the back. legend).
- The stereotypical Soviet soldier was capable of enduring great suffering and hardship, fatalistic, dogged in defense (in particular in bridgeheads), a master of infiltration and night fighting, but inflexible, unimaginative, emotional and prone to panic in the face of uncertainty.
A majority of Americans probably accept these judgments as realities . In doing so they display a warped impression of the war which belittles the role played by the Red Army. As a consequence, they have a lower than justified appreciation for the Red Army as a fighting force, a tendency which extends, as well, to the postwar Soviet Army. Until the American public (and historians) perception of Soviet source material changes, this overall perception of the war in the East and the Soviet (Red) Army is likely to persist.
Close examination of Soviet sources as well as German archival materials cast many of these judgments into the realm of myth.
The Cold War severely distorted the history of WW2, and it is just now being undone.
|April 29th, 2005||#42|
| || |
Zucchini please post the source for the information you posted.
I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which in truth, they are.
Gen. W.T. Sherman
|April 30th, 2005||#44|
| || |
Those force ratio losses were more or less repeated almost right up until the end of the war. You're right about one thing though. The Germans could not afford even their modest losses without anything to show for it.
"An Emperor is subject to no-one but God and justice."
Frederick 1, Barbarossa
|May 1st, 2005||#45|
| || |
While I realise the Germans lacked any serious amphibious capability I am not sure thay could have or would have passed up the opportunity to land in Britain.
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
|May 1st, 2005||#46|
| || |
I agree with those who say the Eastern front decided the war in Europe.
Up to 80% of total German casualties in the war occurred on the Eastern front.
Probably the only chance the Germans had to defeat Russia was in the first 6 months of the war.
It was logistically beyond them.
The Cambridge History of Warfare said that the German military planning for Barbarossa was ''a mixture of tactical and operational genius, with woolly headed political optimism and logistical imbecility.''
After the Germans were fought to a standstill at Leningrad and then Moscow, and pushed back in the Russian counter attack, they were always going to struggle to defeat Russia.
A simultaneous offensive by the 3 army groups was then out of the question.
After that, Russia had the chance to build up and equip their massive reserve armies and outproduce Germany from new factories behind the Urals, plus Hitler declaring war on America, committing Germany to a war on two fronts.
So my vote would go for the battle of Moscow, with the Stalingrad fiasco ruining their Southern offensive, and by Kursk, the largest tank battle of the war [Germany's last throw of the dice] starting so late, they were virtually kaput.
Mansteins ''Backhand'' plan, although a brilliant concept on paper, might have had less chance of success then Manstein thought it would.
The Americans were always going to defeat Japan once production was in full swing, even if they blundered along the way, and Germany had next to no chance of crossing the channel.
|May 1st, 2005||#47|
| || |
I'm a bit caught between the battles of Stalingrad and Moscow.
I'll plum for Moscow because it was the Germans first big reversal. The gateway to Moscow was wide open at one stage but was closed again in November/December 1941.
The Germans had to make a major "strategic" retreat. It was a near collapse for a while (after the Russians counterattacked).
The battle for Moscow gave the Russians more time. The Germans didn't have that luxury. They needed a quick win.
I agree with Doppleganger that Lend Lease was critical for the Russians.
|May 1st, 2005||#48|
| || |
I've voted for the battle of Moscow, because to win in the Soviet Union the Germans needed to fight a short, quick campaign.
With the failure to take Moscow, Germany was commited to fighting a war for which she hadn't prepared, and in which the odds would eventually favour the Soviets.
Moscow ensured that the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk would eventually be fought.,
If in doubt...... Panic!!!!!!!!
|May 1st, 2005||#49|
| || |
|May 1st, 2005||#50|
| || |