Hard to believe the world was plagued by TWO such kooks at the same time... If you went by quantity, the "nod" has to go to Uncle Io, although you could attribute the 40 million or so dead resulting from WW2 as Adolf's fault since he started it... ------------------ Novus Ordo Seclorum
I can't verify this but acording to my history professer this is a quote from Stalin:"One death is a tregedy, one million is a statistic"
Dear Killjoy: I agree with you that Hiler started it but I see that if stalin had the first jump at starting the war-the insane @#$%^ probably would have murdered more than what he managed to do. I do agree with and liked your post.
I bet this would make a good voting question Otto... Who was more of a madman..Hitler or stalin? Something to that affect.
As much as I dislike Hitler, I dislike clinto/stalin even worse. That would be a good poll question though.
It depends of your standing point. From the German point of view, the biggest tragedies are: Stalingrad, Kursk, Black May of 1943 on Atlantic and-Hitler, the best Soviet general. From the Allies point of view: Dunkirque.
I would think Dunkirk was the only positive thing abiut the loss of france. Another great tragedy for the Allies was the "milking" of he french labor force over 4 years for the Axis cause.
Srdo is right, it depends on your point of view as to what a tragedy was. But I think Carl's question was directed at the biggest tragedy to the respective nation. BTW, Welcome aboard Srdo, I always like to have members from so called 'minor' countries of WW2, you guys usually have little different perception of the war than most, and it's interesting to hear their opinions.
Sorry, but I must reitterate the notion that the massacre of innocents transcends national policy/aims, and the casualties suffered by combatants, since even if they did not CHOOSE to be on the battlefield, they nonetheless retain the means to defend themselves... Whether it be the pogroms of Stalin, Hitler's "final solution", or "ethnic cleansing"... ------------------ Novus Ordo Seclorum
Dear SRDO, I liked you comment about Hitler being the Russians best general. In a way, I do agree with you but, if Hitler had not been so messed up from all the drugs that his Dr was poisoning him with, he might have been able to win a stalemate outside Germanys borders in the least. Zhukov was the Russians best General--at least in my opinion. He whipped the Japanese.
A portion of Hitler's mental deterioration may be attributed to the various stimulant "potions" of Doktor Morrel. Indeed, it is hard to believe that the shrewd political manipulator of the rise of nazism could fall so far into delusion without chemical assistance. Nonetheless, it must be remembered that Hitler was almost certainly an emotionally disturbed individual. Nobody who dreams of such "pure and absolute" power and exhibits such peculiar quirks of behavior could be said to be "all there". The incursion of reality into his elaborate fantasy for Germany's future could have had as much to do with his collapse as a leader as the drugs... As to Comrade Georgi... I've always had a problem with Zhukov's mantle of greatness... ...Sure, he pummeled the Japs, but he had heavy tanks and an embryonic Russian Blitzkrieg tactic against Chi-has or lighter (or none) and an enemy with no anti-tank weapons.... As for his Eastfront victories, well... ...Given the manpower and material resources to repeatedly pound objectives and shrug off horrific losses... I merely feel that his claim to fame comes more from being on the winning side than through any outstanding or genius ability... ------------------ Novus Ordo Seclorum
Dear Killjoy: I agree with what you said about Hitler. I only partially agree with what you said about Zhukov. Its true the Russian forces had better equipment to fight the Japanese with, such as better artillery and tanks. The Japanese military was very wrong for not developing better weapons. They did have a heavy tank but even then, it was a piece of junk. Their artillery fared little better but at least their artillery did have Howitzers, and not just light field pieces. They relied on winning battles with just Infantry and Infantry tactics. The Russians knew better. Zhukov did have some superiority in numbers and weapons but, you have to blame the Japanese for their mentality (lack of) for the modern battlefield. Zhukov was their best commander at his level. Their best commanders were purged by that maniac of maniacs, uncle joe. That is why the Germans were able to whip the Russians that badly in the first months of the war. I have to respectivly disagree with you about Zhukov, but the rest I do agree with you on. Get this for loyalty. Zhukov had been sacked once before by stalin, then recalled to an important position by stalin, to "save their red-skins" The victory parade in Moscow after the wars end, had many Russian and Allied Generals presant. stalin and Zhukov were both supposed to lead the parade on white stallions. Zhukov rode his horse, stalin did not because he was afraid of being thrown from the horse. So then in stalins eyes, it looked as if Zhukov was taking all the glory for winning the war (which he was not). In the video of this parade, you can see stalins petty manners when it came to all the attention that Zhukov recieved. In the video you can see stalin give a deadly frown on Zhukov, and the stare. Because stalin was so petty of Zhukovs popularity, he has Zhukov arrested less than 1 year later for treason against the state. What Zhukov was arrested for was because he was popular. stalin shafted Zhukov time and time again, but Zhukov remained loyal for the good of the state. If I had been Zhukov, I would have tried to dispose of stalin sometime during the war. Zhukov went through all kinds of hell needlessly heaped upon him by that sorry s.o.b. I think that Zhukov had to have been a very remarkable person--especially to put up with stalin. stalin didnt even care about his own son, and years later his daughter sought asylum here in the USA. Sorry for such a long reply, and I dont mean to sound rude.
Well, I'd have to be a pretty sorry slob to find merely the debating of my points to be rude, so don't worry about that! The sole thing I can think of to 'defend' the Japanese point of view is that they had been fighting only against the most primitively equipped defenders up 'til they encountered the Russians, and had no battlefield experiences which lead them to believe in armored doctrine ala the ETO. Once they started boating around the pacific, it would probably have been tough to carry even Sherman-sized tanks around in numbers given their transport methods... Getting back to Georgi... I'm sure that he was not without capability. Given the Russian habit of stockpiling about a weeks worth of gas and then giving the go-ahead for an offensive expected to last two months... Also, it must have taken a grim sort of determination and courage all its own to send wave after wave of troops to certain doom knowing that Uncle Io would tolerate no less... I've read of the poor treatment Zhukov received after the war. I often wondered if their ever was a coup planned that he perhaps refused to be part of. Undobtedly a man deserving of the "Hero of the Soviet Union" award. ------------------ Novus Ordo Seclorum
Well said! and I agree with what you say. I had to laugh at the way you told of the Russians way of preparing for an offensive because you hit the nail on the head on that. I am very surprised that the Russians did as well as they did without Zhukov being present on all fronts at the same time. I dont know if Zhukov ever thought about a coup of sorts or not, I think he was too honorable to do that--just like Rommel was for the Hitler plot. I agree also that Zhukov, truely was a "Hero of the Soviet Union" and deservedly so. Actually anyone able to put up with stalins mess, deserves that title also. Recently while I was in Konstanz Germany, I met a few Soviet students and found them to be quite nice people. Nika in particular, was very friendly and we wound up riding bicycles arouind Lake Konstanz, getting lost for a few hours but having a great time none the less. OH, to be able to go back again.....................................................................................
<font color=#9932cd> Hi this is my first post. Although I agree with alot of what the others have said about the greatest tragedies I feel that the Dieppe Raid on August 19th 1942 ( I hope I spelled that right.) was over looked. It was a slaughter during which an army of 5000 ( Mostly Canadian ) was cut down 80%. It was a disaster and such a waste as it was partly to test the German strength. Oh well this is the end of my first post Sorry if anything is inacurate </font>
Good post Nikki and welcome. Spelling is correct and you do have a point. It was a waste. Do we know if there is bad blood between the Canadians and Brits because of this? I am sure the French still hold a grudge against the Brits because of what happened to their navy in N. Africa. ------------------ "They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet or fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."
<font color=#9932cd>Actually afterwards there was a huge backlash by the Canadian people. I have heard the quote that "Whenever the British have a job to do they send in their best troops : The Canadians" Obviously said by a Canadian. For more info you can go to this link : </font>Canada's : Dieppe
Are you saying that the Brits used the Canadians? I am not really sure what you meant by the last 2 or 3 posts.
Well from what I know Britain and the U.S were sort of at odds over whether or not to invade France. Of course eventually that would happen with D-Day but at the time Britain wasn't sure. So the sort of 'tested' the Germans strength by sending an army of 5,000 to take on the Germans located in France. It was a suicide mission but Britain didn't use their own troops. They sent in the Canadiens instead. Their ultimate defeat was enough to show those in favor invasion the time was wrong.
