OT: TLD
I'll be watching "The Longest Day" shortly. Perhaps you should too!
I know about History & its meanings despite what some members say.
I know about History & its meanings despite what some members say.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
93 comments
Sure you do. But you know what? Why not give an actual demonstration of your knowledge. Far more convincing than merely asserting you have such knowledge but without ever having demonstrated you do - an giving plenty of demonstrations that you do not. (I won't be holding my breathe waiting for it either.)
I think The Longest Day is a travesty of a movie, a pure Hollywood fantasy about what really happened on June 6, 1944. The American contribution was not anywhere near as great for the success of the Normandy landings as the movie leads its viewers to believe.
What the movie really shows is the poor performance of the American military on Omaha and Utah beaches and the absolutely pathetic performance of the 82nd and 101st airborne troops. It also reveals the lousy leadership of the American generals.
There were three other beaches stormed on June 6, 1944 - Sword, Juno, and Gold. The performance of the British and Canadian troops was much better. The British and Canadian paratroops also performed better than their American counterparts. Quite simply, they were better trained troops with much more combat experience than the American cannon fodder. Not braver or more courageous, just better trained and more experienced.
The only army to achieve and even exceed the planned objectives on June 6, 1944 was the Canadian Army at Juno. Canadian generals were screaming for reinforcements and materiel so they could exploit the breakthrough they had achieved. Eisenhauer refused. He was blinded by the mess that the Americans had created for themselves.
This was a colossal blunder and cemented Eisenhauer's reputation as a useless combat general. There would have been no grinding weeks of heavy combat through the Normandy bocages. There would have been no Falaise Gap with upwards of 500,000 German troops escaping to continue fighting all the way back to Germany. It is probable that the western allies would have taken Berlin by Christmas 1944, leaving the Russians hundreds of kilometres east somewhere in Poland; changing the entire post-WWII European geopolitical mess.
June 6, 1944 was a glorious and complicated military operation just not exactly as portrayed in The Longest Day.
I'm watching it as a way to remember ALL persons who died & were wounded.
Is there a Canadian portrayal of the FACTS of the D-Day Invasion? I'd like to know so I can watch it & learn something. THX
Is there a Canadian portrayal of the FACTS of the D-Day Invasion? I'd like to know so I can watch it & learn something. THX"
Blah ! Blah ! Blah !
No wonder you pay more than the rest of us for sex
That was a frozen dinner 1950's edition "classic"
I know of no Canadian movie portrayal of the events of D-Day. That is not to say that such a movie does not exist, just that I am no movie expert.
Military history is one of my great interests. I have read scores of books about WWII and, if you are interested, as a starting point I suggest that you might read Eisenhauer's memoirs or even Churchill's.
I am planning another European holiday this coming August/September to tour the sites of the various battles that my Dad's armoured regiment fought. His regiment had been fighting in Italy for about a year when D-Day took place. My Dad's regiment saw combat in France at Dieppe in August, 1942. I will be spending some time at Dieppe and I will also be visiting the D-Day beaches.
The main American contribution to defeating the Nazis in Europe was the overwhelming superiority of your system of mass industrial manufacturing. Your country could produce the stuff faster than the Germans could destroy it. It was sub-standard materiel but there was just so much of it. The Brits produced much higher quality planes, guns, and tanks. The Germans produced the best artillery and tanks of all combatants. Your country also had generals who were logistics experts viz, Eisenhauer, lousy as a combat general but pure genius at organization and logistics (and politics).
The American military did not really distinguish itself admirably in any European WWII battle. Omaha/Utah was a fiasco. Anzio was no better. Getting caught by the exhausted Germans at the Battle of the Bulge was a disgrace of leadership.
The Russian Army's men and women were the true heroes of WWII. They chewed up the cream of Germany's army so badly that the western allies mostly had only second stringers to fight in Normandy and on to Germany. Hitler sealed the fate of his armies when he invaded Russia in June, 1941 which was six months before your country even entered the war, mikey02.
Your cheap shot at the Canadian Army is uncharitable. During WWII Canada had over 10% of its entire population in uniform; three times the participation rate of your country's population in the war effort. My country keeps no huge standing army but whenever my country deems its national interests at risk we always respond magnificently.
Please note that I am not impugning the bravery or courage of your WWII fighting forces. Far from it. I respect and honour all who fought the Nazis in Europe during WWII.
As a WW11 buff have you ever read "Tuxedo Park", and the contributions of Alfred Loomis? He was a person I think you may find interesting.
I'm a big Eastern Front buff myself, and think it's important to point out that just shortly after D-Day the Russians began Operation Bagration which total destroyed the German's Army Group Center on the Eastern front. About 600,000 kills/causalities from that Operation alone. Not something you learn about in many history books in this country, however!
Now, all that being said, Omaha would have been just an average day in Stalingrad at the peak. Russians. Canadians. Americans who fought. All heros, but saying it was all the Americans is getting a bit jingoistic.
Many of the points that you American guys make just reinforce what I am saying. The point that Omaha was heavily defended is a perfect example. Poor planning, poor intelligence, poor leadership. The Canadian Army learned the pure folly of attacking a beach heavily defended from the heights after the catastrophe of Dieppe, Canada's blackest hours of WWII.
I was wrong to insult the movie. The Longest Day is a good piece of entertainment. As a piece of history it is a travesty.
This is becoming the farmerart/Dougster love-in. Another perceptive, knowledgeable observation from Dougster about the Finns.
Check out the story of Simo Hayha, the greatest combat sniper the world has ever seen. He is credited with killing 705 Russians during three months of the coldest part of the winter of 1939/1940 as the Soviets invaded Finland. The Russians could never get him. Hayha was finally seriously wounded but he survived and lived well into his 90s.
It is a fascinating saga of a great warrior.
I just realized from reading another thread that I have been constantly misspelling Eisenhower's name.
Sheesh! I am such an idiot.
Thanks for the comment Art. I never meant to imply the film was historically accurate -- I just thought it was entertaining.
I doubt any war film can portray the reality of war. Maybe the opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan" came as close as anything.
Purely from a film history point of view, I particularly liked the Longest Day because of the cast. You don't see modern movies with a cast like that. Full of established stars and some stars of the future.
And Dougster did make a good point about the Russian involvement in the war. It is true, that unless you've done some additional reading on the subject, the Russian involvement is hardly mentioned in a typical high school history class. The casulaties totals are staggering and I would guess there are large number of people that are unaware of the facts.
But let's not forget the Americans were fighting on two fronts too. My Dad turned 18 in April 1944. He signed up at the recruiting office on his birthday and left for basic training a few days after his high school graduation and served in the Pacific theater.
All of the Allies fought with courage and played important parts, but American won the war.
I agree. BUT IMO the film is not strictly about D-Day. It is more about one person.
US came in, not because they were needed to "win" it but to prevent the entire continent from turning Bolshevist.
You really ought to read up on your history better.
I'm not going to let your piss job on the USA go by without some rebuttal:
****> "Poor American leadership, and did not distinguish itself admirably in any European Battle".
Have you not heard of Gen. George Patton ? Although his forces weren't part of the Normandy landing force, his forces performance when commited post D-day were anything but "undistinguished".
You said nothing about the War of the Atlantic, mainly getting war supplies to the front, and fighting off the Uboat threat. A distinguished Canadian armored division isn't going to be effective without adequate supplies. US produced merchant and escort vessels AND US Merchant, Navy crews helped keep the merchant supply lines open. Although Royal Navy got a head start on USN in Atlantic War, the US sank their share of U-boats.
****> "Inferior Quality". This quote leads me to air war over Europe. The US did produce a large quantity of airplanes, but inferior quality?
Yes, the Spitfire was a "magnificent aeroplane", but it lacked the combat radius of the US fighters (P51- which could escort bombers to Berlin. Herman Goering reportedly said that he knew the war was over when he saw P51's escorting bombers over Berlin). Even the P47 and P38 which appeared earlier in war had significantly more combat radius than the Spitfire.
As for bombers- The Lancaster (utilized by RAF, and RCAF) could carry a greater bomb load than the B17 and B24 utilized in European Theater by US-AAF, though they had a lower service ceiling than those types. Both US types were effective in their time, even though they were developed earlier than Lancaster. In the question of mass produce the best that you have now vs "hold off" and develop a better one- do you think air war in Europe would have gone better if US slacked off on B17/24 production and waited until 1944 to mass produce the B29 when it became operationally "ready"?
I'm not going to micro-analyze every battle and weapon system here. There were blunders made on both sides, but who won in the end ? Finally, WW2 was a vast complex war that went far beyond the scope of the combat proficiency of one Canadian armored division. Would your father wanted to go into battle with 3/4 of his supplies facing an enemy that had twice the ammunition and fuel reserve than it did?
You say in an earlier post that you are not impugning the bravery or courage of US forces in WW2. Yet I consider your assertion earlier in post that main US contribution of WW2 was its supply system/mass production and that US forces didn't distinguish themselves to be an uncharitable cheap shot.
My intention in this entire thread was not a 'piss job' on the American war effort in Europe. It was merely an attempt to shine the light of fact on the dark hole of ignorance and propaganda portrayed as history in the movie, The Longest Day.
Only a fool denies the value of the American war effort in achieving the goal of ridding Europe of the Nazis. A bigger fool insists that the Americans won the war all by themselves.
To your points. General Patton? He was, by streets and yards, the best American combat general in Europe in WWII. After Sicily and Italy he was given only minor roles in the fighting. For D-Day he was left behind as a decoy in England. The Wehrmacht feared him so much that they looked on Allied High Command's use of Patton as a mere ploy for something deadly later. Why wasn't Patton given a larger role? He could motivate soldiers. He was respected by GIs who fought like hellcats under his leadership. I regard that as a failure of leadership by Eisenhower and his clique.
Quality of mass produced armaments? The American mass production of heavy industrial goods was the saviour of the Allied war effort in Europe. The other Allies did not have the resources, the skills, or the population to come close to American capabilities. In addition, the Brits were being bombed by the Luftwaffe. American quality was very low, however, improving as the war progressed. You cite the P-51; no argument about the merits of that plane at all. But at the crucial times of the war, the Hurricanes and Spitfires were tops; the Churchills were a better armoured and gunned tank than than the Shermans; the Lancs were better and tougher than B-17s and B-24s. Lancs were assigned the much more dangerous night time bombing raids. No American plane could match the speed of the de Havilland Mosquito, the plane tasked with shooting down the flying bombs that the Nazis developed late in the war. The Rolls Royce Merlin engine in all its configurations was the best power plant that the Allies had at their disposal during WWII. What do you think powered the better American planes late in the war? American quality got much better as the war progressed.
War of the Atlantic? You are really off base here. Starting from virtually nothing in 1939, the Royal Canadian Navy was the world's third largest navy by 1945. The RCN's prime task was convoy protection. Up to 1942, most convoys to Britain left from Halifax and were escorted by RCN to mid Atlantic where they were turned over to the Royal Navy and air cover from the British Isles. After that date convoys would leave from New York and meet with more ships from Halifax where RCN would take over convoy protection. US Navy capabilities were stretched in the early years of the war. Up until 1943 RCN had to escort returning US merchantmen from Newfoundland to New York because the US Navy did not have enough ships in the Atlantic. From 1944 until the end of the war RCN had full responsibility for convoy protection for the entire North Atlantic crossing. Of all the merchant seamen lost in the Battle of the Atlantic more than 10% of them were Canadian sailors, a very heavy price paid by a small country, population-wise and a much higher price than that paid by US merchant seamen.
But, quibbling about numbers, quality, and capabilities misses the real point of all this. The war to rid Europe of the Nazis was a true WORLD war. It is just rude and unbecoming for you Americans to claim responsibility for the final result. Mention in this thread has been made of the Finns. The Poles probably fought Nazis in more different countries in Europe than did the troops of any other Allied nation. The Free French acquitted themselves admirably. The Indians fought gallantly in Italy. There were active underground fighters and partisans in virtually every occupied country in Europe.
I have no great knowledge of the Pacific War. Others here will know much more than I do; I shall defer to them.
The Allied forces worked together to improve upon each others technology. It is widely accepted by many that the war was won by our development of radar, and ended by our use of the Atomic bomb.
Huh? The battle of Britain may have been won by the development of radar, but even if Britain had been completely take out, Russia would still have crushed Germany. Any serious historian will tell you that - far form your assertion being "widely accepted".
"Wars are generally won because of the domination of technology."
There are so many counter examples to this. Korea? Stalemate. Vietnam? The less technically advanced side won that one. Also especially true of successful 20th century insurrection against old colonial powers.
For the most part the Finns were fighting against the Allies in WWII because the Allies included Russia! In fact, they were allied with Germany for long period. Part of their final peace with the Soviet Union did involve them expelling the Nazis from their country (apparently at the cost of 100,000 scorched homes as the Nazis withdrew.)
You are entirely correct about the Finns and WWII. However, their alliance with Germany was really just an alliance of convenience against the Finns' most serious threat, the Soviets. The Finns were stuck between a rock and a hard place in WWII. Their real aim was to retain the integrity of the territory of their country against the aggressive encroachment of the Soviets. No alliance with Britain, France, or any other Allied power was possible so the Finns held their noses and signed up with Germany. In the end, that decision cost the Finns a good chunk of their territory, lost forever to the Soviets.
It was a tragic end for a pragmatic effort at self-preservation. Many Finnish-Americans and Finnish-Canadians returned to their home country to join the fight against Soviet aggression.
****>> "Off-base", "Worlds third largest navy".
Am I? Who built most merchant ships? How did the US and Canadian merchant fleets compare throughout the totality of WW2 ? As for Navy, I see that by one metric, the Canadian Navy was indeed the worlds 3rd largest Navy, with 560 ships of all types that participated in WW2. 560!! The 2nd and 3rd largest Navies ? US Navy had 9243 ships, and Royal Navy 9470 that participated in WW2. At the end of the war, US Navy had 6768 ships in operation, including more than 11 times the number of destroyers (most suitable type ship for sub hunting) that Canadian Navy had. (377 vs 33).
That the RCN did an admirable job of escorting convoys- no argument there. It should be noted that the bulk of the escorts were of the Corvette version (~ 1/3 of total RCN) which were essentially glorified whaling ships with a top speed of 16 knots- OK for hanging with merchant ships, but a speed that could barely keep up with a surfaced U-boat (17 knots).
While RCN escorted merchant ships, USN formed hunter-killer task forces that were designed to prevent Uboats from getting to convoys in the first place. This didn't happen overnight. In the 18 months leading up to May 1943, US managed to sink 36 Uboats. In the following 6 months: 65 U boats. In fact 2 days prior to D-day, one such task force managed to board and capture U505, including the decoding machines. (Which helped to decipher coded radio transmissions to Uboat operating fleet). U505 is on display in Chicago Science and Technology museum- you should punt the Chicago stripclubs, and visit the museum instead, Art. I digress.
"No US plane could catch".....>>>>>>>
One source lists top speed of Mosquito as being 415 mph at 28000'. The P51 was 437 mph at 25000'. Yes, the Mosquito did down more V1's than any other aircraft type. That is because RAF squadrons were tasked with home defence(GB spelling), while American P51's were tasked with escorting heavy bombers on missions, and ground attack missions in continental Europe. Both types performed their tasks/missions well. To imply that P51's couldn't have matched or exceeded Mosquito V1 killing feats is unfounded speculation. Btw, the "redlined" indicated airspeed limit on the P51 was 505 mph, which could only be reached in a dive. I don't recall the Mosquitos limit, but it was south of 500 mph.
Yes, I agree that it was truly a World War, and that US wasn't prepared for it, or totally spooled up, until 1943. Nor do I think US won it singlehanded. Yet I know that no other nation could have fought a 2 Ocean war with the sheer magnitude of effort and ammassed forces that US did.
1st paragraph: should read "merits of Brittish designed aircraft".
2nd paragraph: should read "2nd largest, and largest navies."
And you can go on and on about the Finns but at the end of the day they were fighting a decimated Red Army who fought like idiots and still were about to win.
Yeah, that's really smart. Guy was easily their best general. Put him and charge and it would have ended the war earlier, saved many allied lives, maybe even allowed the allies to control more of postwar Europe, but, oh, he couldn't keep is mouth shut. Can't have that. Got have your priorities right, you know?
jestie: "And you can go on and on about the Finns but at the end of the day they were fighting a decimated Red Army who fought like idiots and still were about to win. "
With the Red Army's numerical superiority it should have been cakewalk to overrun the country in a few weeks whether they fought like idiots or not. But Finn's where the world's best fighters, and very adaptable. For example, improvising anti-tank tactics even though they had very few of their own and had not fought against them before. "Decimated" is a great description of the condition those Red Armies were in after encountering Finnish force. But Uncle Joe kept dumping in unlimited manpower, but still was never able to take the entire country. Ok, so that's 1939-40.
1944 Red Army was a vastly different story. After their hardening having gone toe to toe with the Wehrmacht and SS they were now not only an equal match for it but superior as was demonstrated by their complete destruction of Army Group Center in Operation Bagration. About the same time they again attacked Finland, this time with the element of surprise. There is no way you can describe them as fighting like "idiots" this point or decimated. They should have been able to what they had down to German Army Group Center. But it was Finnish bravery and fighting skill which prevented this and keep a large part of their country and way of life in tactic, and, thus, mostly escape the post war fate of Eastern Europe.
Again, jestie, you really need to brush up on your history a bit, and look more careful at the logic of the positions you advocate.
"Got have your priorities right, you know?"
I know this may be confusing to you but I wasn't consulted about WWII command appointments. But those were the very reasonable sentiments of Eisenhower and his staff. Putting an impulsive (Task Force Baum) guy who runs his mouth and doesn't always follow orders at the head of your army AND sending him on a collision course with an ally he had expressed a desire to fight is a TERRIBLE idea, regardless of how good a commander he might be.
The Red Army was decimated before it got to Finland (ask your history prof about the Great Purge in 37') and unprepared to do battle particularly in the winter weather. The Finns beat the tanks because the Russians used them stupidly and blew what should have been a great advantage. Russian tactics sucked in the Winter War, tends to happen when you lock up or kill most of your good officers. The only reason the Russians didn't take the country was because they had more pressing issues, Finland sued for peace (which they'd been doing the entire war) and made major concessions because they knew they were about to be overrun.
In 44' Finland had significant support from Germany and again they had to keep retreating. Whether or not Russia really intended to take over the country at this point is up for debate but clearly they made the decision to say "fuck Finland, let's go to Berlin" instead of continuing to fight.
Finns = No more impressive than many other groups
And I know this may be confusing to you, but I was talking about "you" the jestie-girl, but about the allied commanders at the time. But I guess you are just too stupid to have figured that out from context.
jestie: "The only reason the Russians didn't take the country was because they had more pressing issues"
Which were? The reality is that it was actually due to the their high casualty rate, with more certain to come if they pressed it along with the chance of other Scandinavians or French and British forces showing up to help the Finns if the war continued. Finally the Russians were also worried about a spring thaw which would have provide a nice opportunity to the Finns to decimate their forces bogged down in the forests.
Like I say might be a good idea to read your history books before you run your mouth here and show how little you know.
As for 1944, yes the Finns made a wise decision to withdraw rather get encircled (as happened to Army Group Center) given how greatly they were out numbered and that they were taken by surprise.
After this original pullback the Finns lines firmed up and Russian Offensive ran out of steam. Again the Russians realized that price of reaching their original military objectives was going to be too high.
Again, remember what the fair comparison is. The German's Army Group Center was completely destroyed by the Red Army at this time. The Finns managed to keep their country and way of life mostly intact, despite facing overwhelming Soviet forces.
You should read your history books and compare the fate of the other Eastern Europe to that of Finland post WWII. Or just look at what shape those countries are in today versus Finland. Maybe then you would have the proper appreciation what he Finns accomplished.
Finns = man for man best fighters of WWII with Canada #2.
But a question for you, since you don't agree that their nation were man for man the best, which country would you say produced the best soldiers of WWII?
Dougster's knowledge of this topic or any other topic he duscusses is limited to what he reads in Wikipedia before he posts.
Let me say, farmerart thinks I have a good knowledge of the subject, but tittyfan and jestie do not. Hmmm... Which one of these guys's opinions should matter more to me. Geee, now that is a tough one. :-)
It's hard to argue against the notion that starting with Stalingrad the Russian had unstoppable momentum. After that about only major German victory against them was Kharkov. After Kursk it was definitely, completely, and completely over for the Germans.
I think that, man for man, the Russian had the better army at the end of the war, with Russian tanks far superior to any of the allies.
A very interesting "what if" question is what if the Americans didn't have the atomic bomb, and Stalin decided to pursue a war on the continent?
The other thing that Staling did that delayed capturing Berlin in the absolute minimum amount of time given the Eastern Front was pretty much wide open after Bagration was his big swings into states to the south of Germany like Hungary. Since the fate of Hitler was a done deal he was definitely already thinking of the post war situation.
"Which were?"
Not having to fight a Franco/British force was the pressing issue. Stalin had gotten what he wanted, breathing room for Leningrad. He could have taken Finland but it would have been a big risk for a little gain. Bottom line the Finns had lost.
As usual you fail to realize that you simply repeating "you don't know what your talking about" over and over doesn't make it true.
In 44' the Russians goal is a matter of debate. But it still stands that had they wanted to take Helsinki they could have, instead the opted for the much more valuable prize of Berlin.
Yes they kept their autonomy (when did I ever deny they didn't or even mention it?) though they were still under the thumb of the Soviets through the Cold War. Also no Marshall Plan = No 100's of Millions their neighbors received.
Country that produced the best fighters?
A tough and complicated question. The Finns were undoubtedly brave but they were fighting a strategically weak enemy in a defensive war on their own turf in brutal weather... Certainly brave, talented soldiers, but best? No way.
I consider the Wehrmacht more impressive man for man. Well trained, battle hardened, well equipped, brave.
I get told I have to go to war tomorrow with a regiment of Finns or Wehrmacht, I pick the krouts every time.
OMG. You are seriously that naïve? Like the Finns were ever seriously considered taking it? It's almost like you read the Bolshevist propaganda from the time and believe it! Answer me this: If Leningrad was ever seriously a target for "Finnish Impearlism" why did they just grab it along with the Germans in the continuation war? Because they didn't want it dumbass!
And, as I said above, I say if the skillful and heroic defense kept the Finns in the war long enough that things like the spring thaw, and possible foreign intervention was a serious concern for Stalin, that is all the more testimony to what the Finns accomplished in the face of overwhelming odds. If it was going to be a cakewalk to take the country like you are implying, Stalin would have just done. Can't believe how naïve you are about the nature of him. Oh, he was just trying to protect Leningrad. Seriously pathetic thinking on your part!
jestie: "In 44' the Russians goal is a matter of debate. But it still stands that had they wanted to take Helsinki they could have, instead the opted for the much more valuable prize of Berlin"
If the Finns were as ok, but nothing great as you say the Russian could have grabbed both. You site the Wermacht as better, but I say compare the two compaigns then when the Russian were at a very strong, not decimated army. Who performance do you think was better - Finland in 1944 where they mostly preserved their country and way of life, or Germany where Army Group center was completely decimated?
jestie: "I consider the Wehrmacht more impressive man for man."
Ok, something we can agree on. Very fine soldiers indeed. But not as good as the Finns or the Canadians. And, by the end of the war the Ruskie was just as good.
Put in with those Finns or Canucks any day.
mikeya02: "Stalin had his eyes on Japan too. Thank Christ we had the bomb. Stalemate since then."
Completely agree with you on that one. And if not for the atomic bomb, I think Stalin would have kept his tanks rolling after Berlin and sent them into France. Now that would have been the ultimate death match of all time - Ruskies versus Brits and Tanks - only holds barred are atomic weapons!
Ok, humor me on this one. What was so important about Greece? Are you one of those people who thinks the German delay in the Balkans in 1941 end up costing them Barbarossa?
Before the war ever started when the two countries were trying to come up with a pact Moscow requested islands in the gulf for the navy AND moving the border further away from Leningrad. In exchange Russian lands in the north would be given to Finland as compensation. Guess what the Finns ended up ceding after the Winter War?
Stalin could have taken the country. By the time they signed the treaty the Finns were defeated, if they hadn't signed then Russia would have likely kept progressing (as they had been doing). Stalin signed because he'd gotten what he wanted and the remaining gains weren't worth the costs.
In 44' Berlin was the prize not Helsinki. Why would Stalin waste time, any amount, to take it? Not worth the risk. Doesn't mean the Finns weren't done for.
Your comparisons are crap and I'm not looking at isolated incidents, I'm looking at the groups as a whole.
Finns = not the best.
Did it cost them Barbarossa? Questionable.
Weather and Russian mobilization cost them Barbarossa. Those two things were greatly benefited by the delay caused from Hitler having to knock out the Greeks after Italy failed to do it.
Undeniably it gave the Brits time to shore up defenses and kept the Axis from knocking out more of their troops early on.
Considerably more important to the war as a whole than the Finns slowly retreating to the Russians while they screamed for peace.
And the Finns refused because they rightly didn't trust Stalin given, for example, the 1937 purges.
I also find it amazing that keep mentioning the Finns lost territory and this proves they were not the best fighters. And then you say the Germans were the best, yet they lost not just some territory but their entire country! That is just some amazing logic!
The Finns were attacked by the Russian a couple of times - first when the Red Army was rather weak (1939-40) and then when it was incredibly strong - 1944. They survived both of those mostly intact, yet the Germans, by contrast did not survive the Red Army once it became strong.
jestie: "Your comparisons are crap and I'm not looking at isolated incidents"
Too funny. Ok, let's walk through jestie-girl logic.
Ok, let me see. First you start by saying the Finnish performance in the 1939-40 Winter War doesn't count because the Red Army was "decimated" at that time. Ok, cool so then you say the Wermarcht was better than the Finns. Ok, when fighting whom? The "decimated" Russian in 1941? Nope fighting a decimated force proves nothing... So...
How about a year they both fought a very strong Red Army? 1944. Whose performance was better that year? The Finns who manage to hold onto most of their country or the Germans whose army on the Eastern front was completely decimated.
Oh, no! Not a fair comparison! Because Bagration was just a minor little thing. You should focus more when the Germans fought decimated/demoralized armies. Oh but when the Finns did, the comparison is not fair!
What a friggin' joke.
jestie: "Weather and Russian mobilization cost them Barbarossa. Those two things were greatly benefited by the delay caused from Hitler having to knock out the Greeks after Italy failed to do it. "
What a joke. Sorry, but it quite a myth that the Germans just didn't realize Russia gets cold in the winter, or muddy in the autumn. Yeah, who could have expected that. Also think your enemy might mobilize. Hmmm... I think the finest army in the world, as you put, might have done a slightly better job of accounting for those things.
And no an extra month even would not have won Barbarossa for the Germans. Maybe they could have captured Moscow but I don't think that would have been enough. Would have need Moscow and St. Petersburg then maybe... But no way they could have got the latter. Oh wait. I'm wrong. There is one way... If they had had the Finns on board for that one. :-)
jestie: "Undeniably it gave the Brits time to shore up defenses and kept the Axis from knocking out more of their troops early on.
"
Britain was already safe after the Battle of Britain. Again, though, they were too small a concern to have made a difference to whether Hitler would have lost to the Russians or not.
jestie: "Back to ignore."
Pretty clear that you don't! But hey, you just keep thinking that the Russia couldn't have won it without the Americans.
Run jestie-girl run!
Berlin was a prize, but not "the" prize. As I discussed above, Stalin was looking at the entire post war situation beyond the Nazis who were already written off. His focus was not on grabbing Berlin as quickly as possible, but in having maximum Soviet scope post WWII. If all he want was the end of Nazism he would have moved faster through Poland, won't have screwed around in Hungary, etc. But he was looking at the whole picture. Maximum Soviet influence after the war.
If all he had wanted was breathing room for Leningrad, well he had that after the German Seige was lifted and since the Finns never made a move against it.
jestie: 'than the Finns slowly retreating to the Russians while they screamed for peace."
Again, you need to read the history better. In 1944 they made a strategic withdrawal, but they waited until their lines firmed up before sue for peace so they would not be negotiating from a position of weakness. I also funny that you mention "retreating" and seem to imply that it is inconsistent with being the world's best fighters, yet what the hell was the Wehrmacht doing? Lots of retreating, or stupidly staying put and not retreating and getting surrounded and crushed. But then again, you lack of basic logical skills needed to see glaring contradictions in things you say are an endless source of amusement to me. :-)
I think anyone who thinks about it for a couple of seconds can see it was just a land grab after Ribbentrop-Moltov. First Poland than anything else weak that they thought they could grab. Only thing was the Finns weren't weak. Can't stop shake my head at what a mouthpiece/apologist for Stalin and Bolshevists the jestie-girl is in this thread. Just a tiny-tiny little bit on the naïve side?
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=2…
Link to thread so you can go and bash gsv for citing wikipedia as a reference.
(I do read Wikipedia, but most of my knowledge of the Eastern Front comes from books by David Glantz, if you would be interested in getting up to speed on the matter.)
Anyway in my topic I was just linking to an article about Alexander Shulgin, but there's plenty of non-Wikipedia sources about him the say the same things. There's even many interviews, etc. where he verifies his substance use and how his love life/marriage has even thrived on it. He's 87 years old and occasionally uses MDMA with his wife. Power to him.
I don't think Douggie understands the difference between citing Wikipedia as a refernce and regurgitating Wikipedia as your own thought.
It is interesting he states his knowledge of the war comes from reading David Glantz. According to Wikipedia, David Glantz has been critized for inventing thoughts and feelings of historical figures without documenting sources.
Like Douggie, it appears he just makes thing up to make a point.
What is most humorous to me though is that my knowledge of finance comes from a book by Hall primarily and yet txtittyfan says it's only Wikipedia. Thing is if he had read even that much he would know it is mathematicall impossible for a risk free investment to return higher than treasuries.
Wikipedia articles on the eastern front seem to be very good but if tittyfan or jestie or homothehut feel compelled to bash them I would love to see them point out inaccuracies or deny that they ever consult them. Won't hold my breathe on that one.
As Gsv says often a good place to start.
Anyone can criticize anyone for anything. Doesn't mean it's true. tittyfan never was good with logic, however. I the irony here is so ironic. tittyfan regurgitating Wikipedia regarding Glantz as he his own though.
The exact quote:
"Glantz has also, however, met with some criticism for his stylistic choices, such as inventing specific thoughts and feelings of historical figures without reference to documented sources.["
but also
"Glantz is regarded by many as one of the best western military historians of the Soviet role in World War II"
So who is right? txtittyfan won't know because he has never read them and his only knowledge of Glantz comes from the very brief Wikipedia article about him!
tittyfan: "Like Douggie, it appears he just makes thing up to make a point. "
Oh, more irony.
This from the guy who invented the phrase "sell a short futures position" as part of an imaginary scheme to supposedly achieve a risk-free investment yielding more than treasuries. (Too bad that's mathematically impossible.)
tittyfan = biggest assclown in TUSCL history next to the RickyBoy.
That's fair and in many ways it's a valuable resource, but not when you're regurgitating them after a google search as if they were something you were already vastly familiar with. What Dugly was doing.
Sadly you can beat some people over the head with evidence and yet their own mental shortcomings will allow them to simply ignore it.
Still time to sign up for some more History classes next semester bud. Sit up front this time.
Furthermore, you even contradict yourself throughot the thread. First you say it was unclear if the soviet intention in 1944 was to capture all of Finland and then later (maybe after YOU read Wikipedia) you say it was just get breathing room for Leningrad. Which makes no sense since the German seigr had already been lifted and the Finns had no interested in since they didn't bother taking it when it was ripe to do 1941-3.
Your final contradiction - first you say I just regurgitate stuff from Wikipedia but then later you say that you think that I have taken college courses in History. Again if you contradict yourself shows your lying in one of those statements.
I think you are just upset because how we demolished some of your cherished but erroneous beliefs in this thread. To the point where you couldn't even think straight and tangled yourself in contradiction - much like the tittyfan dies when I'm laying a good ass-raping on him!
It is CERTAINLY interesting to be refighting WWII here. And all because I like the film "The Longest Day".
I like the two way POV of "Tora, Tora, Tora" & enjoy watching it every December 7th. Shall we refight the Pacific Conflict here? Do we have any Japanese or Japanese-American members with a POV of this film?
And this quote proves your lack of reading comprehension. First I stated that in 44’ it was unclear. Which it is, we’ll never know if Stalin really intended to take the entire country or not, a debated point among actual historians.
You later asked what were the pressing concerns for Stalin to leave the country after the Winter War. I gave them and then pointed out that Stalin had gotten what he wanted, breathing room. This was in 40’. (He offered to TRADE for the same land the Finns ceded before the war).
Those are two separate points in time, over 4 years apart. There is no contradiction. I’m sorry this was to complex for you to follow.
You've got your order confused again. But setting that aside, taking a course would exempt someone from regurgitating from wikipedia? (It wouldn't) Again, not a contradiction. Read a little more carefully, use a dictionary for the big words.
Just keep shouting “I win!†if it makes you feel better.
Summation of the Finns:
39’-40’ : Fights a crappy Red Army that is unprepared for winter combat and fails to exploit it’s tanks. Still manages to get pushed back to the point they surrender territory (which they could have done before the war and received compensation.
44’ : Get pushed back for a month before they make any decent stand at which time the Russians begin transferring soldier to the much more important arena.
Best soldiers of WW2? Nope.
"Tora, Tora, Tora" is IMHO a much better film than Pearl Harbor (2001). Bay is a terrible director.
Agreed. He's made a lot of crap movies... Gotta love Hollywood.
More mind boggling logic. Maybe, only, maybe there was a point before Ribbentrop-Molotov where they could have made the trade. Would you have trusted Stalin, jestie? I mean it looks like you are quite the apologist for him. But you're really that naïve?
Ok, so maybe there is some doubt before Ribbentrop-Molotov. But after that? After the Russian move into Poland? Consider their moves into the Balatic post Molotov? Considering that they staged a border incident to start the war with Finland? Consider his generals made statement about how they would overrun the country in a couple of weaks? You really believe all he wanted to provide some protection for Leningrad? You are really that naïve? Can't stop shaking my head at that one....
Finally let's just assume that everything you said is true. Okay, so the Finns didn't take a good deal supposedly and sincerely on offer to them after Molotov Ribbentrop? When there was no fighting. If all that were granted it might show they were boneheads diplomatically, but it says nothing about their fighting abilities. Two totally disjoint things you are trying to make a logical connection with to "prove" your point. Nothing but sophomoric transparent equivocation on your part.
"jestie: 44’ : Get pushed back for a month before they make any decent stand at which time the Russians begin transferring soldier to the much more important arena."
Jestie? How much were Finns outnumber in 1944 when they were taken by surprise. 5:1? 6:1? By a very powerful army at that time too. A strategic withdrawal was very wise. Should have been a cakewalk for the Russian to take the entire at that point. Against any other country I think they would have too.
But since "had to retreat" or "lost territory" is your criteria, let's consider how your Germans faired during that time? Lots of retreating there or failing to do so and getting surrounded and destroyed instead. So by your own criteria own minute not very good. But I guess your criteria changes when it conflicts with another point you are trying to prove. And you fail to see the contradiction!
Again in 1944 your "best fighters" the Germans were completely decimated on the Eastern Front during Operation Bagration.
So let's see. Totally annihilated for one versus most of the country kept intact for the other... Sorry, Jestie gonna have to award that one to the Finns. :-)
Also I think readers of this thread who don't have a predetermined agenda like you, and understand a bit about postwar history, like you are unable to, can see that Stalin's goal at this time was obviously maximal Soviet influence post WWII. So he took whatever was weak for the pickings. If he could have taken the country easily, as he should have been able to do with those forces and that numerical superiority against anyone else, does anyone besides you seriously think he won't have?
As for your claims about my background in history: I guess I will have to grant you a point there. Your statements are wrong but inherently logically contradictory. I must have got some of your statements confused with txtittyfan's since you guys are both equally dumb and quite likely just the same person posting under different aliases.
Good to see that you at least grant me that I have some formal education in the matter. Too bad that means you end up contradicting txtittyfan! That's okay though. If your side can't even keep its story straight regarding me it shows you ain't got nothing that sticks.
Or sail over some naval vessels. Dumbass. Guess the jestie-girl ain't even bright enough to realize that what naval vessels do. They sail around!
Also, jestie, I see you still completely avoid the whole matter of you having offered absolutely zero evidence that the Russian could not have won the war without the Americans. Pretty wise of you to just keep your big mouth shut on that one though, since you KNOW you ain't got nothing.
Stalin didn't break the treaty after the Winter War, the Finns did. Nor did he break the 44' treaty when he could have easily rolled over the Finns once he the war was over. Would I have trusted Stalin? I dunno, regardless the point remains the Finns "accomplishments" in the Winter War were just not that impressive.
Again it's naive when you focus on the facts. He offered a trade beforehand, he didn't break the treaty of the Winter War and he didn't go back and crush them when he had consolidated Eastern Europe. (If you don't think he could have at that point, then you're a bigger dumbass than you've already proved).
"But I guess your criteria changes when it conflicts with another point you are trying to prove"
There is no contradiction. Simply retreating and being pushed back are not in and of themselves that bad, who didn't that happen to at some point? BUT, the simple fact is in that the two major campaigns of the Finns that's all they did. No advancing, little offensive fighting.
"Again in 1944 your 'best fighters'"
Again you're quoting me on things I never said. Probably because you can't properly refute anything. I never said the Germans were 'the best', I simply said man for man I'd take them over the Finns. Oh and btw, when you're Finns stalled the Red for a week in 44', who was fighting with them? Oh yeah, the Germans.
"So let's see. Totally annihilated for one versus most of the country kept intact for the other"
If that's your criteria for "best" then you're still wrong.
You're comprehension of naval warfare is pathetic. Island fortifications are common through out history and all over the world. Again you abandon logic and fact. Again a dumbass.
Sorry Dugly. You can misquote me, ignore evidence, lack decent rebuttals, and flat out make shit up but you'll still be wrong.
When you learn to use a more complex system than "no that's not right! I am!" let me know and I'll explain how the Russians couldn't have won with out the U.S.
But I'm done trying to educate you. Feel free to make some more shit up.
I'll leave it to readers to who know of that pact to judge for themselves if Stalin and the Bolshevists were nice honorable people who just wanted some justified protection for Leningrad.
I have given evidence you a ton of evidence that this wasn't so - their moves into Poland, the Baltics, the manufacturing of an incident with Finland as pretext to invade. Statements by their generals. You completely fail to address these points or Molotov-Ribbentrop in general.
You arguments boil down to -
a) Stalin could be trusted, and
b) the Finns weren't the best fighters since they retreated (when caught by surprise and outnumber 5:1) and lost territory.
With regard to b) you then you say the Germans were the best! Even though they were pretty much constantly retreating after Kursk, or failing to do so when it was strategically and tactically called for and getting entire armies or army groups(Bagration) destroyed instead.
As I say you criteria shifts and contradicts itself depending on what point you are trying to make in any given sentence.
The bottom line is this -
I say the Finns were the best, and what they accomplished was nothing short of miraculous. They neighbored a very belligerent Soviet Union who wanted all of their territory after Ribbentrop-Molotov.
The SU's forces greatly outnumbered the Finns in the Winter War and in 1944. In 1944 the SU was a very competent fighting force. In both cases it should have been a cakewalk to take the entire country, and any other nation of that size would have fallen.
In general, they were able to preserve most of their nation, population and way of life and you just have to compare the fate of other Eastern Europe nations and the relative standing of two to see, what the heroic sacrifices that the Finns made won them, and how those sacrifices continue to have a major impact even 70 years later.
But, hey, you just stick to your line that they should just trusted Stalin, and that withstanding his armies twice was no big deal. And then you keep contradicting yourself when you say the Germans were better even though they could not.
As I say I am confident that I have made my case better than you, and I'm quite happy to leave it to readers to judge for themselves. Even if they don't agree with my ultimate conclusion, e.g. maybe think the Canadians were better, I hope I did bring some attention to what this small nation pulled off in the face of overwhelming odds that you really cannot find another example of in WWII.
Bye-bye, jestie! (Just keep up that line that Stalin could be trusted, though. That'll give ma daily laugh.)