Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"harry, I'll ask you the same question. Look at the disposition of forces immediately after the war. What leads you to believe that the US could have beaten the Soviets?"
I don't see the original question as you re-state it. The original question related to the relative strengths of the military. (BTW, that debate technique of redefining an objective is one that the military uses as well. Make the opposition focus on taking that mountain, while the real objective is this town over here.)
I took your statements as support for what snowball was saying. I am not trying to obfiscate or steer the conversation. If the question is relative strength, then we already know that answer, 4:1. That was the Soviet advantage in combat forces in Europe in 1945.
Quote:
The U.S. public was sick of war. We even used Japanese troops to continue to police lands that they lost at the end of the war. All the troops wanted home, and were disgusted that they had to stay after their main job had been done. When you pose a question about the U.S. "beating" the Russians in a global rugby match, in the mindset that existed, you hedge your bet, so that you can come back with "yes, but.." statements.
I'm not the one advocating that the US could have kicked the Soviets back to Moscow. I'm not hedging anything, merely wondering how people reached the conclusion that the US was so "star spangled awesome" that we could beat the Soviets in 1945 in a cakewalk. The statements being made are almost to the tune of, "had US leaders not been such wimps, we would have kicked Soviet butt". I don't see anything to support that conclusion.
Quote:
Until the soviets got the bomb, any strike on the U.S. would have been patiently resisted until another bomb could be made. It would then have been flown over Moscow and the Kremlin and dropped. End game. If that didn't have the desired effect, the U.S. could literally make planes faster than they could be shot down while making more bombs, until ICBMs took over. WWII was an air war, a WWIII in the 1900s would have been a space based war.
Patiently resisted actually equals watching the Soviets steamroll through western Europe. We could nuke Moscow, but then what?
Air power certainly played a large role in WW2, but as with all wars, even ones fought today, the decisive factor is and always has been "boots on the ground".
Quote:
The "army" of the soviets was strong, no one denies that. However, a large percentage of the foot soldiers were still parade drill trained peasants without advanced skills. Ants - magnifying glass - sun.
The "parade drilled peasants" somehow managed to defeat what is universally considered the finest field army of WW2 and did it nearly singlehandedly. More to the point, what is the difference between a kid from a farm in Ohio and a kid from a farm in the Urals when it comes to fighting a war?
There is a solid post above which I gave a positive nod to.
Sorry, I don't have the time to write down everything I know
about this. I didn't learn to type until I was in my 30's. I have a
Masters in History. Anyway, it will have to be up to you to do the
reading. The Red Army was not a willing compliant to war. Their
resistance to an Allied bombing campaign would be futile, nonetheless,
they did not have any means of resisting a true Allied campaign, if one
was allowed to begin. Once their leadership fell, the people would not
have fought to the last breath. Even if they did, they would die miserably.
Concerning Patton, I never said Truman killed him. Truman was a tool
of the international cabal which started the war. Patton was killed
and Bazata told about the plot, denying personal involvement, but of
course he would do that.
I responded to the post you agree with. I'm having trouble taking you seriously when I need to reconcile "Masters in History" with "international cabal that started the war". Which "cabal" would that be? The Zionists, the Iluminati, the Free Masons, the Martians, which one? I need to make sure I have the appropriate tinfoil hat on if we're going to continue the conversation.
I took your statements as support for what snowball was saying. I am not trying to obfiscate or steer the conversation. If the question is relative strength, then we already know that answer, 4:1. That was the Soviet advantage in combat forces in Europe in 1945.
What is it in the air that makes people unwilling to understand that a large number of bodies do not equal strength? The two are totally independent issues.
169 Spanish soldiers under Francisco Pizarro and their native allies captured the Sapa Inca Atahualpa in the 1532 Battle of Cajamarca.
The Battle of Teocajas - Benalcázar had about two hundred Spanish and some sixty horses: it was a large force at the time. He was joined by about 3,000 natives and faced a force of 50,000 +- Despite their numerical inferiority, the Spanish only lost four soldiers and four horses at the Battle of Teocajas, whereas native losses may have been as many as 4,000, according to Ecuadorian historian Juan de Velasco.
I'm not the one advocating that the US could have kicked the Soviets back to Moscow. I'm not hedging anything, merely wondering how people reached the conclusion that the US was so "star spangled awesome" that we could beat the Soviets in 1945 in a cakewalk. The statements being made are almost to the tune of, "had US leaders not been such wimps, we would have kicked Soviet butt". I don't see anything to support that conclusion.
Again, I refer you to the ORIGNAL question. I put it in red so that you can see it:
I like to lurke here but dont post much. I have always been amazed at what so many countries did in WW2 and how so many lives were lost. I think most agree at the end of WW2 the USA and USSR were the most powerful countries on earth but which in your opinion was the strongest military and ecinomic wise. ?
You are digressing and obfuscating, attempting to infer that I stated "the US could have kicked the Soviets back to Moscow." I never said that. I never inferred that such a course of action would be how any campaign would be planned. If you want to continue with this line of affront, then I must ask you "Just when do you plan to stop beating your wife?" What, ME infer that you beat your wife? Ohhh, I plead innocent, just like you. All I did was ask an innocent question.
Patiently resisted actually equals watching the Soviets steamroll through western Europe. We could nuke Moscow, but then what?
I don't know, a party with lox and bagels and vodka? That never was part of the question in red.
Air power certainly played a large role in WW2, but as with all wars, even ones fought today, the decisive factor is and always has been "boots on the ground".
Cliche. Without that cliche, no one would join the infantry. The decisive factor in wars has RARELY been the battlefield. In just about all modern wars, the decisive factor has ultimately been politics and negotiation and an unwillingness of one side to continue further. Battles lead to that point, but so do munitions, supply line deficits, and a hundred other factors. The fact that ground battles are often the last of obvious efforts does NOT make them the decisive factors. The aerial softening of defenses are often required to even CONSIDER beginning a "boots on the ground" battle and occupation.
The "parade drilled peasants" somehow managed to defeat what is universally considered the finest field army of WW2 and did it nearly singlehandedly. More to the point, what is the difference between a kid from a farm in Ohio and a kid from a farm in the Urals when it comes to fighting a war?
Do you expect anyone to take that "nearly singlehandedly" seriously? You might as well say that the Japanese defeated the Chinese invasion with pitchforks, and the "divine wind" was just a minor weather phenomenon.
Lest you be tempted to continue, read the part in red again. THAT is what I responded to. If you want to argue the relative numbers of soldiers, or anything else, I pass. Find someone else.
I responded to the post you agree with. I'm having trouble taking you seriously when I need to reconcile "Masters in History" with "international cabal that started the war". Which "cabal" would that be? The Zionists, the Iluminati, the Free Masons, the Martians, which one? I need to make sure I have the appropriate tinfoil hat on if we're going to continue the conversation.
I took your statements as support for what snowball was saying. I am not trying to obfiscate or steer the conversation. If the question is relative strength, then we already know that answer, 4:1. That was the Soviet advantage in combat forces in Europe in 1945.
What is it in the air that makes people unwilling to understand that a large number of bodies do not equal strength? The two are totally independent issues.
169 Spanish soldiers under Francisco Pizarro and their native allies captured the Sapa Inca Atahualpa in the 1532 Battle of Cajamarca.
The Battle of Teocajas - Benalcázar had about two hundred Spanish and some sixty horses: it was a large force at the time. He was joined by about 3,000 natives and faced a force of 50,000 +- Despite their numerical inferiority, the Spanish only lost four soldiers and four horses at the Battle of Teocajas, whereas native losses may have been as many as 4,000, according to Ecuadorian historian Juan de Velasco.
OK, then by what measure do you determine that the relative strength of the western Allied military in Europe was greater then that of the Soviets? The Spanish had a massive technological and tactical advantage against the Inca, steel armor and horses. The Soviets experienced no such deficit relative to the western Allies.
Quote:
I'm not the one advocating that the US could have kicked the Soviets back to Moscow. I'm not hedging anything, merely wondering how people reached the conclusion that the US was so "star spangled awesome" that we could beat the Soviets in 1945 in a cakewalk. The statements being made are almost to the tune of, "had US leaders not been such wimps, we would have kicked Soviet butt". I don't see anything to support that conclusion.
Again, I refer you to the ORIGNAL question. I put it in red so that you can see it:
I like to lurke here but dont post much. I have always been amazed at what so many countries did in WW2 and how so many lives were lost. I think most agree at the end of WW2 the USA and USSR were the most powerful countries on earth but which in your opinion was the strongest military and ecinomic wise. ?
You are digressing and obfuscating, attempting to infer that I stated "the US could have kicked the Soviets back to Moscow." I never said that. I never inferred that such a course of action would be how any campaign would be planned. If you want to continue with this line of affront, then I must ask you "Just when do you plan to stop beating your wife?" What, ME infer that you beat your wife? Ohhh, I plead innocent, just like you. All I did was ask an innocent question.
Your first post was this...
Quote:
Cannon fodder does not equal military strength. The U.S. never had a meaningful attack on its industrial infrastructure, and it had access to almost unlimited raw materials, so it isn't even a question.
That post followed a post by snowball stating:
Quote:
The US could have defeated the Soviets without much bother.
...and ovcatto's response...
Quote:
For reasons that have been stated numerous times on this forum, To borrow from your nick, like a snowball's chance in hell. Easily, forget about even a protracted victory is nearly impossible to conceive.
As you failed to quote the OP, I assumed you were responding with your statement directly to the back and forth between snowball and ovcatto. This was reinforced, to me, by the fact you added a comment on the "Patton sidebar" which snowball had introduced to the discussion. Go back and re-read the thread in order. Your failure to quote the OP or stating that's what you were addressing led me to believe your comments were directed towards the "US vs. Soviet War" sidebar.
Quote:
Patiently resisted actually equals watching the Soviets steamroll through western Europe. We could nuke Moscow, but then what?
I don't know, a party with lox and bagels and vodka? That never was part of the question in red.
No it wasn't, but I didn't realize you were even posting about the "question in red" until now.
Quote:
Air power certainly played a large role in WW2, but as with all wars, even ones fought today, the decisive factor is and always has been "boots on the ground".
Cliche. Without that cliche, no one would join the infantry. The decisive factor in wars has RARELY been the battlefield. In just about all modern wars, the decisive factor has ultimately been politics and negotiation and an unwillingness of one side to continue further. Battles lead to that point, but so do munitions, supply line deficits, and a hundred other factors. The fact that ground battles are often the last of obvious efforts does NOT make them the decisive factors. The aerial softening of defenses are often required to even CONSIDER beginning a "boots on the ground" battle and occupation.
The point I was trying to make there is that the Soviet military was powerful enough to take all of Western Europe. The US could have bombed them and that may have been enough to gain concessions and peace, but at the end of the day, without troops on the ground you aren't claiming or liberating anything. Exactly how many wars have been won solely through the application of air power?
Quote:
The "parade drilled peasants" somehow managed to defeat what is universally considered the finest field army of WW2 and did it nearly singlehandedly. More to the point, what is the difference between a kid from a farm in Ohio and a kid from a farm in the Urals when it comes to fighting a war?
Do you expect anyone to take that "nearly singlehandedly" seriously? You might as well say that the Japanese defeated the Chinese invasion with pitchforks, and the "divine wind" was just a minor weather phenomenon.
I've built my case for that statement in countless threads and I stand by it. The vast lion's share of the fighting and credit for the victory belongs to the Soviet Union. The war on the Eastern Front, which was basically what the war itself hinged on was decided at Kursk in 1943. From then forward, it was only a matter of time before the Soviets achieved victory. At that point, Lend Lease Aid had barely begun to arrive, the Western Allies were just scratching at Italy's boot and the strategic bombing campaign was on hold do to excessive losses, not to resume in earnest until early 1944. When the Allies were still clawing their way to Caen, the Soviets decimated a quarter of the German militaries remaining strength in Operation Bagration. Well over 80% of German military losses in WW2 occurred on the Eastern Front.
I can say "nearly singlehandedly" because that's exactly what they did.
Quote:
Lest you be tempted to continue, read the part in red again. THAT is what I responded to. If you want to argue the relative numbers of soldiers, or anything else, I pass. Find someone else.
I obviously misunderstood what you were replying to. Might I suggest making use of the "quote" feature in the future or at least making it clear to whose post you are responding. For someone not interested in "arguing" you are certainly doing a lot of it.
I'll take global Zionist conspiracy theories for $1,000, Alex.
Seriously? You're someone who claims to have a "Masters in History" yet attempts to prove their point by posting links to the Nazi Party of Canada's website?
I'll take global Zionist conspiracy theories for $1,000, Alex.
Seriously? You're someone who claims to have a "Masters in History" yet attempts to prove their point by posting links to the Nazi Party of Canada's website?
For the Soviets to have fought The United States and taken Western Europe would've involved months, if not years, of heavy fighting. The United States Army was smaller than the Soviet one but by Spring of 1945 of very high quality. It wouldn't have simply rolled over. And the Bomb cannot be discounted.
As Americans we discounted the Soviets in WW II for so long I think we now often overstate their capabilities in reaction.
I don't know, he might actually have a Master's in History...from the University of Nuremberg circa 1935.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
For the Soviets to have fought The United States and taken Western Europe would've involved months, if not years, of heavy fighting. The United States Army was smaller than the Soviet one but by Spring of 1945 of very high quality. It wouldn't have simply rolled over. And the Bomb cannot be discounted.
As Americans we discounted the Soviets in WW II for so long I think we now often overstate their capabilities in reaction.
How do you account for the fact that this exact scenario was "war gamed" and theorized by the British and their conclusion was that the Western Allies had a very slim chance of victory, so slim that they strongly advocated against any military action against the Soviets?
I would also challenge the assertion that the US Army was of "very high quality" in 1945. The issues with the replacement system and "repple-depples" are well known. By 1945 only around 15% of the men in any unit were actually originally part of the unit that shipped to Europe. Many US units suffered casualty rates well over 300% because whole units were never rotated. Soldiers were simply sent to replenish units as needed. Post Bulge many US units were chock full of green soldiers fresh from boot camp or stripped from rear echelon areas and had never even received basic combat infantry training. You ended up with "split" units where you had some veterans that had been in theater for years (some men in the 32nd Infantry were in combat for 600+ days), another group that had managed to survive their first few months on the line and the final and largest contingent, those who were green and fresh off the troop ship or had just been re-assigned.
I agree that there has been a bit of an over correction in giving the Soviets credit, but when you look at the timeline, the numbers, etc. I don't feel that I have been over-exagerating Soviet capabilities or role in the war.
I'll take global Zionist conspiracy theories for $1,000, Alex.
Seriously? You're someone who claims to have a "Masters in History" yet attempts to prove their point by posting links to the Nazi Party of Canada's website?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
