When a tree is not a tree - Page 4




 
--
 
March 1st, 2015  
Kesse81
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetvet
We always think of Germany invading Poland when in fact Russia was also in on the invasion , why didn't France and England declare war on Russia ? , politics make's for strange bedfellows .
Pretty logical, I think. It was the only practical option available. A war with Germany was daunting enough but one with the USSR as well would have been all but unwinable.
March 1st, 2015  
George
 
A book, "Now it can be told", covers WWI trench warfare pretty good.
March 1st, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kesse81
Pretty logical, I think. It was the only practical option available. A war with Germany was daunting enough but one with the USSR as well would have been all but unwinable.
Unwinnable how? Because they would have had to gone thru Germany to get there. Or would the Royal Navy have attacked via Siberia - Kamchatka.
It was impractical. Militarily Germany presented the greater obstacle.
--
March 1st, 2015  
Kesse81
 
No it was not necessary to go through Germany
There were plans to attack from Finland.
March 2nd, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kesse81
No it was not necessary to go through Germany
There were plans to attack from Finland.
One of the reason the Germans almost beat the USSR was they had a continuous front extending across the entire western frontier of the USSR. This allowed them quick access to the vast steppes in the Ukraine and the Russian heartland where they could make quick armored advances. This type of sweeping advance would have been close to impossible for an attack on the USSR from Finland only. I'm not saying it wasn't on the drawing board but not only was it impractical Russia wasn't the threat.

In repetition, Germany was the treat having the most powerful army in the world at the time. All they had to do was read Mein Kampf to know that a war of aggression was in the cards. This was proven out only a short while later with the German quickly taking by force: Denmark. Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete and a large amount of the western USSR. Russia in the mean time only took the Baltic states and a small corner of Romania.
March 2nd, 2015  
lljadw
 
As Poland did not declare war on the SU in september 1939,there was no reason for B + F to declare war on the SU .

Besides,for Poland Stalin in Eastern Poland was better than Hitler in Eastern Poland .
March 2nd, 2015  
lljadw
 
About Haig ,the following are the British and Commonwealth losses on the Western Front in WWI


1914:95000

1915:276000

1916: 657000

1917: 837000

1918: 850000

1) Haig became commander in chief on the Western Front ONLY in december 1915.

2)Comparatively,the British and Commonwealth losses in WWI were not much greater than those in WWII,because there was less fighting (and thus less casualties) in WWII and because the ground forces were smaller than in WWI:in WWII,the BEF had not 70 divisions .More fighting and more men = more losses .

The British Army had no casualties in 1939,because there was no fighting that year.

In 1940,the BEF lost 68000 men in less than 2 months(some 35000 a month) while in 1915 the losses were 276000 = 23000 men .

There were big losses during the years that Haig was CiC,but these years were years of unceasing big fighting : Britain was condemned to attack on the Western Front ,less casualties would mean less fighting,which was out of the question .

3) 1917 (the Passendale year) was not more expensive than 1918,the year of victory .

4)During the years that Haig commanded the BEF,the Germans,who remained on the defensive,also suffered heavy losses .

5)Even in WWII was cheaper (which it was only in absolute figures),victory in WWI could not be obtained with the same low level of losses as in WWII.
 


Similar Topics
The bacon tree.
The Bacon Tree
VANCOUVER TREE HUGGER...
Workers kill statehouse Christmas tree
How big is your Christmas tree, (holiday tree)