Most decisive battle in WW2? - Page 16




View Poll Results :Most decisive battle in WW2?
Battle of Stalingrad 34 33.33%
Battle of Kursk (Operation Citadel) 15 14.71%
Battle of Moscow 10 9.80%
Battle of Leningrad 0 0%
Battle of El Alamein 3 2.94%
Operation Overlord (Battle of Normandy) 17 16.67%
Battle of Midway 11 10.78%
Other 12 11.76%
Voters: 102. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
November 16th, 2007  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
Lend Lease helped bring the war to a quicker end, it was not decisive.
Unless you are not of the opinion that it kept the Soviet railroad operational. No railroad, no Soviet victory.
November 16th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
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.
I don't need to address anything else because it has no context to it. You do not list the reasons for the casualties nor what they in fact represent aside from dead bodies. Your arithmetic, on the other hand, is atrocious and can easily be replied to.
November 16th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Unless you are not of the opinion that it kept the Soviet railroad operational. No railroad, no Soviet victory.
Once more, no context given, just a baseless opinion. I'm not here for that.
--
November 16th, 2007  
Del Boy
 
[quote=Ollie Garchy;377738][quote=Del Boy;377737]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

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.

Let me tell you something Ollie. We had a great many explosions regarding matters we both had very strong feelings about. And sure, we did biff each other about a bit. But there were always places you did not go, and I recognised that. Exchanging name-calling I can accept, because I know that it is the question of issues which is dividing and exasperating us, and a little war is necessary fight our corner. All that - OK within reason.

But throughout all of that, you never, ever, gave me the degree of unsolicited offence that Gator gave on this forum by demeaning and insulting the fighting forces of my country , while they were standing and dying as allies of the US in Iraq.

That is what I call unforgivable.

If you check my posts, you will find that at all times I avoided ever giving offence by insulting Germany or the German people. Always my target was the Hitler regime.

I believe your work stands up in its own right, and that you can deal with your exasperation at times with a lighter -footed parry and thrust.

Hope this establishes where i stand in all this to and fro of forum business.
November 16th, 2007  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
I don't need to address anything else because it has no context to it. You do not list the reasons for the casualties nor what they in fact represent aside from dead bodies. Your arithmetic, on the other hand, is atrocious and can easily be replied to.
What the casualties represent is obvious, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Soviet Union lost appalling numbers of needless casualties in WW2.

FWIW, the quote from memory was from a new publication about the Battle of Moscow, so blame the author of that book for any faulty arithmetic you attribute to me.
November 16th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
What the casualties represent is obvious, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Soviet Union lost appalling numbers of needless casualties in WW2.

FWIW, the quote from memory was from a new publication about the Battle of Moscow, so blame the author of that book for any faulty arithmetic you attribute to me.
Where do you see me refusing to acknowledge Soviet losses? On the contrary, I provided the number for you. Secondly, quote your source.
November 16th, 2007  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
Where do you see me refusing to acknowledge Soviet losses? On the contrary, I provided the number for you. Secondly, quote your source.
Well you disagree with Krivosheev then as your number is some 3 million lower than his (assuming you mean 8 million irrecoverable losses). What is your source for 8 million?

When I find the book again I will quote the source here. I'm not saying that I agree with that source mind you.
November 17th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Well you disagree with Krivosheev then as your number is some 3 million lower than his (assuming you mean 8 million irrecoverable losses). What is your source for 8 million?

When I find the book again I will quote the source here. I'm not saying that I agree with that source mind you.
The number includes POWs who died when in German hands, and those who returned, I count that as a separate category than those lost on the battlefield. It also includes MIAs and other categories, you did not provide enough context. Nor did you quote the enemy's losses for a juxtaposition between the two.

Here is a breakdown, past what Krivosheev gives:

The following are recognized as military deaths including POWs, also including NKVD frontier forces:

8.668 million minimum.

- 5.227 million killed in action
- 1.103 million died of wounds
- 0.556 million nonbattle deaths of which 267,000 disease, 289,000 accidents and executions
= 6.886 million

- 3.396 million missing in action
- 1.163 million unaccounted losses in first six months

= 11.444 million

LESS

- 0.940 million reconscripted from liberated territories, escaped from encirclement (okruzhentsy)
- 1.836 million POWs returned at end of war
= 2.776 million missing in action refound

= 8.668 million absolute fatal losses
November 18th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
[quote=Ollie Garchy;377687]
Quote:
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. 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?

So, going to answer my question? What have you written that you claim to be called a 'historian'? Also, I do not attack you, I attack your ignorant line of thinking.
January 10th, 2008  
Ollie Garchy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
The number includes POWs who died when in German hands, and those who returned, I count that as a separate category than those lost on the battlefield. It also includes MIAs and other categories, you did not provide enough context. Nor did you quote the enemy's losses for a juxtaposition between the two.

Here is a breakdown, past what Krivosheev gives:

The following are recognized as military deaths including POWs, also including NKVD frontier forces:

8.668 million minimum.

- 5.227 million killed in action
- 1.103 million died of wounds
- 0.556 million nonbattle deaths of which 267,000 disease, 289,000 accidents and executions
= 6.886 million

- 3.396 million missing in action
- 1.163 million unaccounted losses in first six months

= 11.444 million

LESS

- 0.940 million reconscripted from liberated territories, escaped from encirclement (okruzhentsy)
- 1.836 million POWs returned at end of war
= 2.776 million missing in action refound

= 8.668 million absolute fatal losses
Pure BS ... dream on and smoke more crack. On the other hand, in "reparations discussions", the Sovs liked to use the figure of 20% or 40 million. Where do you get these mythical numbers...from official Sov stats? Jesus H. Christ, these stats deny almost the entire bulk of western literature on the subject. Stalin arbitrarily set numbers. But that is typical for you and your whole approach to academia -- a trust of Russia. I can only laugh. But, just for your info, I can only write (once again): We defeated you in WWI, the snow and Anglo-Saxons got in the way during WWII, but WWIII is an open question.