The Great Patriotic War: 1939-1943

'Course. Now that I am thinking about it...

No one, and I mean no one...West or East...Gives the Soviets credit for starting World War 2.

It wasn't just the Germans that invaded Poland in 1939. But, somehow the Soviets have been given a "Get out of Jail Free" card.

And that just ain't right.

So, if the Soviets want partial credit for Normandy...Fine. But, then they also have to be given partial credit for starting World War 2. After all, fair is fair.

 

Not to mention that Hitler may not have been willing to attack Poland without the agreement with the Soviets. The prospect of them coming into the war along with France and Britain at that point in time would have been daunting.

 

Wrong, again.

World War 2 started because Hitler colluded with Russia in August 1939.

 

Tamino, with all due respect, Germany, not the Soviet Union, invaded Poland first, officially beginning WW2. The Soviet union DID NOT, start WW2........

 

@JJW
Haven't you noticed a great deal of sarcasm in my previous post. Just observe my contemporary wording: Collusion with Russiia! Russia Russia! Now I will use an appropriate smiley to properly denote sarcasm.

Seriously now.

I have carefully read my previous posts and I understand your reaction. That was entirely my fault. Besides several unwise side comments I have used the term “not fighting” instead “not advancing”. That’s a huge difference. Their success was still “work in progress”. Of course they were fighting fiercely, defending bridgeheads with nowhere to retreat or advance, nowhere to hide, in constant fatal danger. Worse, they have been fighting other peoples war in a foreign country. They were in similar situation to Chuikovs’ 62nd Army in Stalingrad on banks of Volga almost 2 years before. I do sincerely appology for wrong wording. That wasn’t my intention.

 

/SARCASTIC MODE ON/
Small potatoes. Two weeks are small potatoes compared to Uncle Winstons' 3 (three) YEARS.
/SARCASTIC MODE OFF/

Are you aware that even Eisenhower wasn't sure when and if the Overlord would be commenced or delayed untill favorable circumstances re-emerge?

/SARCASTIC MODE ON - AGAIN/
Perhaps Stalin wasn't sure that the Allies were really serious obout opening the second front. After that much waitig and delays poor man must have lost faith it would ever happen.
/SARCASTIC MODE OFF/

 

My apologies Tamino, it's a lot harder to see sarcasm here , I understand now!

 

I was afraid you’ve left too, good ol’ cowboy.
I have left because it was saddening to observe how divided and alienated people became over the most corrupt person on the planet Earth: Mrs. Clinton.
I’m back and hope he’ll lock her up soon.

 

@JJWilson
You're indeed a nice man. I do indeed appreciate that. It is pleasure talking to you despite we sometimes disagree or worse, are both wrong. Words come and go, nice people remain.
I wish you a pleasant Sunday.

 

I appreciate it Tamino, It's a pleasure to speak to you as well friend, enjoy your Sunday as well!

 

3 (three) years of Britain fighting the Germans on land, sea, and air...But, I guess, Uncle Winston could have cut a deal with Hitler, just like Stalin did. But, then Hitler and Stalin would have had to divide Poland 3 (three) ways, and I don't think Adolf and Joe wanted to do that.,,They were both too greedy.

Stalin's supposed to be winning the war by himself, yet he is doing nothing but begging, pleading, and crying for a Second Front. Then, when one is opened, it's not big enough for him, so he demands another...What a whiner!

 

With all do respect, the Soviets, now Russians, mark June 22, 1941, as the start of World War II.

All of their activities in starting World War II in 1939, are covered underneath a layer of whitewash several feet deep.

Your also forgetting that in 1939-1941, the Soviets invaded Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland.

Regretfully, Tamino is blinded to this by his new found "enlightenment," and can only resort to sarcasm in order to maintain his fictional grasp on Soviet history.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, I said, "Germany, not the Soviet union, Invaded Poland first....", I did not say that the Soviet Union did not eventually invade Poland, but they did not officially start WW2. As for Tamino, I am no longer arguing, I appreciated his kind comments, and responded in kind. I think it's good I just spectate this thread from now on.....

 

As to what I am saying...

Look at it this way.

If two burglars Rob your house, but the second burglar enters 30 minutes after the first...Is the second burglar any less guilty or robbing your house?

"Well he did it first." Ranks right up there with "I was just following orders."


As to Tamino, I seriously question much of his new found enlightenment...He is a fine upstanding individual, without question. Still, if I believe that his beliefs are biased and without foundation, than I will say as much.

 

This is you being serious? Seriously?

That's also hugely wrong...again. You are seriously deluded if you think that from 6 June to 25 July 1945, the Western Allie were "not advancing". In fact, it was a period of almost unrelenting, daily advances by the Allies, such that the Germans were never able to gain sufficient initiative to launch their planned Panzer counterstroke. In the west, First Army first advanced and seized Cherbourg, while the British hammered on the gates of Caen. That the advance was slow and steady, punctuated by periodic lulls to regroup does not equate to "not advancing". It was the Germans who were "not advancing" and who were, in fact, retreating.

Nope. I'm afraid that is a very poor read of the situation.

Something the British Commonwealth and Americaans were used to doing for the entire 20th century...and all of the 19th century for the British (quite a hunk of that century for the Americans as well). So what?

So the First U.S. Army and 2nd British Army were reduced to 25% of strength, were incapable of attacking, and were reduced to a bridgehead a few square kilometers in extent? Interesting history you've been accepting as your "new enlightenment".

No problem for me, but I think you need to work on it some more if you want to really try and improve it.

 

The Molotov Ribbentrop pact started the war. After that both sides of the pact started hostile actions. It ONLY enabled the war. Without it no war.

 

Herr Kai Petri, you're so predictable.
To avoid missinterpertation I am citing original German tittles of documents so you cannot use different namings to contradict.

So, okay, you’re right. In 1939 Soviets signed with Nazi Germany:
Der deutsch-sowjetische Nichtangriffsvertrag

In 1934 Poland signed with Nazi Germany:
Deutsch-polnischer Nichtangriffspakt

In 1939 Germany and Estonia signed with Nazi Germany:
Deutsch-Estnischer Nichtangriffspakt

Finland has signed with Nazi Germany:
Sowjetisch-finnischer-Nichtangriffspakt

That's your country, Finland, dude.

So, why not: Poles, Finns, Estonians and Soviets have enabled the World War 2.
Do you have any further candidates?

 

What happened to non-aggression pact between Finland and the USSR since 1932?

 

Wow! This means that Finns colluded with both Soviets and Nazis. In 1944 they started pretending they haven't "enabled" WW 2 - twice.
We should get back to the subject of this thread, withoutdigging dirt.

 

So let's get back to the substance.
Comparison of Allies vs. Red Army is rather fruitless task. They were so different that there is no valid basis for comparison; it is just enough to state that they were different. Everything else could just end up in either boasting or downplaying.
On the other side, the German forces have undergone massive changes since 1939 but had unique features which could be useful to analyze reasons for German failure both at the east and the west.
This could be the right way to approach the Overlord and Bagration simultaneously. The results may provide answers difficult to approach without aanalysing German forces in two entirely different sets of circumstances.
There are at least five features in common:
1. Failure of German intelligence to provide information and to anticipate where both Allies and Red Army would attack in 1944,
2. The Luftwaffe failed to provide an adequate support (Hayward has provided an excellent analysis of this phenomena),
3. Weakening of German industry caused by the naval blockade and bombing of German industry,
4. Lower quality of troops, exhausion,
5. “Blitzkrieg” tactics was outdated and inefficient to opose new ideas emerging after 4 years of experiences gathered at the battlefield.
All above features could help us to explain the failure of German forces to deliver both at the West and the East.