World War I films

[Axl owns dexter]

The problem I have with these films is the war is just a backdrop. I wish to see more films that doesn't involve a romance, just focusing on the war itself. All Quiet on the Western Front and Paths of Glory are perfect examples.

Truman may have been right speaking out against the Armistice because Germany was never defeated they just agreed to a ceasefire and humiliation which set the seeds for Adolf Hitler to come to power. The Treaty of Versailles was just asking for more trouble. It probably would have gone better if the leaders of Britain and France listened to Wilson and Congress approved of a US membership in the League of Nations.

And the treaty was a big reason why Americans were so isolationist after WWI (rightfully so I may add). America was a bigger influence in WWI than WWII (in terms of actually leading to a defeat for Germany), yet the Brits and the French made a mockery of the post-war negotiations by picking off German lands and colonies like a bunch of pirates, making them pay crushing war reparations, and totally ignoring Wilson's idea's of self-determination for Europeans. Wilson looked like a fool when all was said and done.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I know it is much debated how much did America contributed to German defeat in World War II, but in case of World War I the arrival of American troops indeed tip the scale in balance. Russia was out of the war so the Germans were able to close that front and send troops to France. France and Britain were bled white so the first American troops helped ground the German Spring Offensive to a hault (much credit goes to the French and British) but the allied Summer Offensive is what broke Germany.

I believe Truman also said that the Armistice only postpone the war for 20 years. Which turned out to be true.

[Axl owns dexter]

I know it is much debated how much did America contributed to German defeat in World War II, but in case of World War I the arrival of American troops indeed tip the scale in balance. Russia was out of the war so the Germans were able to close that front and send troops to France. France and Britain were bled white so the first American troops helped ground the German Spring Offensive to a hault (much credit goes to the French and British) but the allied Summer Offensive is what broke Germany.

I believe Truman also said that the Armistice only postpone the war for 20 years. Which turned out to be true.

WWII shouldn't even be a debate. 80% of German casualties were in the East, that's where they were bled dry. The Soviets were an unstoppable colossus at that point in time. They had been building up their armed forces for major combat since the 20's and they had huge reserves of cannon fodder for Stalin to throw at you. Could you imagine the US going head to head against the full strength of the Soviets or even Germany at that point in time? Casualties would have been in the millions and Americans would have been calling to bring the boys home from that slaughterhouse ASAP. The US only lost 250k (I say only, because look at the Soviet and German losses), and the war was getting to be unpopular enough by '45.

Regarding Versailles, it wasn't just Truman saying that, some of the British leaders themselves were saying the same thing about another war breaking out in 20 years!

[Georgy Zhukov]

Comparing losses isn't the way to go by it. The US lost 250,000 (still a huge number) because they applied better tactics and the fronts were more narrow compared to the Russian front. Much of the loses may be blamed on incompetence on both sides. The Germans were more likely to surrender to American and British forces than the Soviets so they fought harder. Economically America tipped the balance even more than the Soviets and ended the war sooner. There was no way Hitler could have won against Stalin and probably would have lasted a lot longer than it did. No doubt American supplies to the Russians and British kept the war machine going. The Soviets may have been preparing for a long time but by 1941 they were still unprepared and the vast numbers of casualties and prisoners show. The counter-attack at Moscow was what stopped the German army cold and quite literarlly. They had four months to win the war because the problem with Blitzkrieg as that if momentum is slowed the shock is gone.

I mentioned incompetence on both sides, I talked about the Soviet, now I will say the German. Hitler felt unbeatable after taking France, and that was impressive even if it were the French who he conquered. After Stalingrad he should have fallen back and regrouped, draw a defense and focus on North Africa because that could have lead them to vast quantities of reserves. But North Africa was lost. After the Normany invasion Hitler launched a counter-offensive in hopes of destorying Allied momentum like the Soviets did at Stalingrad and Moscow but it failed. Total war wins against Bitzkrieg. The allied effort, including American money and manpower helped drain Germany what little economy and wealth they had left whle the Soviets shoot the men to pieces

I say it was pretty even.

[Axl owns dexter]

Comparing losses isn't the way to go by it. The US lost 250,000 (still a huge number) because they applied better tactics and the fronts were more narrow compared to the Russian front. Much of the loses may be blamed on incompetence on both sides. The Germans were more likely to surrender to American and British forces than the Soviets so they fought harder. Economically America tipped the balance even more than the Soviets and ended the war sooner. There was no way Hitler could have won against Stalin and probably would have lasted a lot longer than it did. No doubt American supplies to the Russians and British kept the war machine going. The Soviets may have been preparing for a long time but by 1941 they were still unprepared and the vast numbers of casualties and prisoners show. The counter-attack at Moscow was what stopped the German army cold and quite literarlly. They had four months to win the war because the problem with Blitzkrieg as that if momentum is slowed the shock is gone.

I mentioned incompetence on both sides, I talked about the Soviet, now I will say the German. Hitler felt unbeatable after taking France, and that was impressive even if it were the French who he conquered. After Stalingrad he should have fallen back and regrouped, draw a defense and focus on North Africa because that could have lead them to vast quantities of reserves. But North Africa was lost. After the Normany invasion Hitler launched a counter-offensive in hopes of destorying Allied momentum like the Soviets did at Stalingrad and Moscow but it failed. Total war wins against Bitzkrieg. The allied effort, including American money and manpower helped drain Germany what little economy and wealth they had left whle the Soviets shoot the men to pieces

I say it was pretty even.

The Soviets lost so badly from June 22 - December in 1941 because they got hit at exactly the worst moment. They were prepared for offensive war on Germany's Eastern Front (they had light tanks, dive bombers, paratroopers all ready to go in great quantities, great in offensive war, terrible for defense). Hitler simply beat Stalin to the punch. And Hitler actually states why he attacked the Soviet Union in the only secret recording of him using his actual speaking voice (

). As he alludes to, if the Soviets took those Romanian oil fields (where the Germans got most of their oil, and which the Soviets were in position to take, the German army would have been rendered useless). This is my opinion now, but I believe Stalin was waiting for Hitler to do a full invasion of Britain, and at that time Stalin would have came to 'liberate' all of Europe.

The Germans also had no ability to sustain Blitzkrieg, half of their transports were actually by horseback. Also their fuel shortages greatly hurt them too. The blitzkrieg was already slowing down before the devastating winter. Germany was not prepared for a World War and I believe their attack on Soviet Russia was one of desperation, and not extreme confidence in their ability to take over such a massive territory.

I mean, we can go over tank figures, manpower, airpower, etc, and in every case the Soviets had the advantage (and that's before the American lend-lease kicked in).

[Georgy Zhukov]

The Germans lost a lot of logistic support taking Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. They lost a ton of bombers, fighers and pilots over Britain. Britain stopped the momentum before The Soviets had. There was no way for the Germans to take Britain since they only had barges to escort their soldiers and that would have been destroyed by RAF planes. Hitler was unable to bluff Britain to a surrender which he hoped to happen before he was free to invaded the USSR. Before Barbarossa, the Italians were losing badly in North Africa and the Balkans so the Germans took over operations. By mid 1941 the Germans were already over extended.

When Germany went to war in 1939 they went in with everything they got. They were taken aback on how strong the Polish resistance was. Lost many planes, tanks and equippment. You are right about the horses, the Germans were shocked when they saw how mechanized the US military were. They had more planes, tanks, jeeps and trucks than they could fathom. They could not keep up with the production. Could not replace enough what was lost. WHen they took the Hague in 1940 they lost 125 transport aircraft which could have helped them at Stalingrad.

I too believe Stalin was waiting to see Britain fall. I also believe he had no interest in going on the offensive into Europe hoping the Allies would do it for him. Churchill wanted to invade through Greece since Italy wasn't going well to cut the Soviets off from taking Eastern Europe. Everyone knew that was folly because of the high concentration of German forces. Poltically it was better to liberate Western Europe. The Western Allies and the Soviets helped each other more than most think. Just because less people died on one side doesn't mean they weren't much help. High death toll means nothing as World War I proved.

[Axl owns dexter]

And as you say, Germany had no ability to defeat the Soviet Union.

Not so against America. If Germany had been able to concentrate all their forces on the Western Allies, there is no way the Americans would have stayed in the conflict and made the necessary sacrifices for victory. As I said, America would have lost millions against a Germany at full strength. America wouldn't have the political will to fight such a war (only way that'd happen is if the war was actually on American soil). The Soviet Union, being a totalitarian state, didn't have to worry about political will, and could send millions to slaughter to win a war.

[Axl owns dexter]

The Germans lost a lot of logistic support taking Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. They lost a ton of bombers, fighers and pilots over Britain. Britain stopped the momentum before The Soviets had. There was no way for the Germans to take Britain since they only had barges to escort their soldiers and that would have been destroyed by RAF planes. Hitler was unable to bluff Britain to a surrender which he hoped to happen before he was free to invaded the USSR. Before Barbarossa, the Italians were losing badly in North Africa and the Balkans so the Germans took over operations. By mid 1941 the Germans were already over extended.

When Germany went to war in 1939 they went in with everything they got. They were taken aback on how strong the Polish resistance was. Lost many planes, tanks and equippment. You are right about the horses, the Germans were shocked when they saw how mechanized the US military were. They had more planes, tanks, jeeps and trucks than they could fathom. They could not keep up with the production. Could not replace enough what was lost. WHen they took the Hague in 1940 they lost 125 transport aircraft which could have helped them at Stalingrad.

I too believe Stalin was waiting to see Britain fall. I also believe he had no interest in going on the offensive into Europe hoping the Allies would do it for him. Churchill wanted to invade through Greece since Italy wasn't going well to cut the Soviets off from taking Eastern Europe. Everyone knew that was folly because of the high concentration of German forces. Poltically it was better to liberate Western Europe. The Western Allies and the Soviets helped each other more than most think. Just because less people died on one side doesn't mean they weren't much help. High death toll means nothing as World War I proved.

I really don't disagree with anything here. I honestly think the Germans lost WWII on September 3, 1939. From that point on, they were guaranteed to eventually fight a 2 front war. Hitler made the mistake in attacking Poland over the Danzig issue and thought the British and French didn't have the political will to declare war on Germany over it. He miscalculated that, and never could make up for that mistake for the duration of the war.

I maybe just still disagree on the level the Western Allies actually led to a German defeat. They played a role, but not equal to the Soviet role.

[Georgy Zhukov]

The Soviets took Berlin but without the Western Allies entering Germany giving much of the Nazi High Command an alternative option to surrender to them, taking Berlin would have meant nothing. The Western Front collapsed leaving Hitler with no one to counter the Red Army. They wouldn't have gotten to Berlin without them. Not without supplies, logistics and agreements.

Germany went to war with all their chips on the table. It was a huge gamble. Would have gone well if Britain fell, Italy was able to hold North Africa and the Balkins and the Soviet Union would fall in six weeks to four months.

Japan was in a similar situation with time. But they were in a more futile situation.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Stannis Baratheon

[Axl owns dexter]

The Soviets took Berlin but without the Western Allies entering Germany giving much of the Nazi High Command an alternative option to surrender to them, taking Berlin would have meant nothing. The Western Front collapsed leaving Hitler with no one to counter the Red Army. They wouldn't have gotten to Berlin without them. Not without supplies, logistics and agreements.

Germany went to war with all their chips on the table. It was a huge gamble. Would have gone well if Britain fell, Italy was able to hold North Africa and the Balkins and the Soviet Union would fall in six weeks to four months.

Japan was in a similar situation with time. But they were in a more futile situation.

Even without a Western Invasion, how were the Germans ever going to win a war of attrition against the Soviet Union? When the blitzkrieg ground to a halt in 1941, that's the situation Germany was in with the Soviet Union, a war of attrition, completely unwinnable for them.

Japan at least had the advantage of being an island nation, making any invasion even bloodier for their foe. The B-29's did them in though before it had to come to that point.

[Georgy Zhukov]

They weren't going for attrition they were going for the win. They thought taking Moscow along with Stalin and the political and industrial region would have pressured the remaining government to surrender. Probably not as likely since the S.S. has been massacring millions of civillains. The people of the Soviet Union would have rallied behind Germany if they weren't being slaughtered.

Japan feared the Russians more than they would admit. I think Hitler was hoping they open a second front in Asia but after that disastrous defeat in Outer Mongolia in 1939 the Japanese took their chances with the Americans. Yamamoto was optimistic enough to say Pearl Harbor would buy them six months of taking South East Asia, he turned out to be right since Midway didn't go well for them and they were unable to secure the Solomon Islands and cut off Australia.

Some would go as far as saying the Soviets in Manchuria pressured the Japanese to surrender more than Atomic bombs. This is debated. I do think after Okinawa surrender was on the table, but since Americans were kept in the dark and knew if they invaded anyway it could have cost ten times as many deaths as Okinawa they figured they needed atomic persuasion along with Russian persuasion.

[Axl owns dexter]

They weren't going for attrition they were going for the win. They thought taking Moscow along with Stalin and the political and industrial region would have pressured the remaining government to surrender. Probably not as likely since the S.S. has been massacring millions of civillains. The people of the Soviet Union would have rallied behind Germany if they weren't being slaughtered.

Japan feared the Russians more than they would admit. I think Hitler was hoping they open a second front in Asia but after that disastrous defeat in Outer Mongolia in 1939 the Japanese took their chances with the Americans. Yamamoto was optimistic enough to say Pearl Harbor would buy them six months of taking South East Asia, he turned out to be right since Midway didn't go well for them and they were unable to secure the Solomon Islands and cut off Australia.

Some would go as far as saying the Soviets in Manchuria pressured the Japanese to surrender more than Atomic bombs. This is debated. I do think after Okinawa surrender was on the table, but since Americans were kept in the dark and knew if they invaded anyway it could have cost ten times as many deaths as Okinawa they figured they needed atomic persuasion along with Russian persuasion.

I didn't say they were setting out to fight a war of attrition (one they were completely unprepared for). Of course they went for a quick victory, but once that blitzkrieg stopped, they were in a war of attrition, whether they liked it or not.

The Japanese certainly feared the Russians after they got their clocks cleaned in Mongolia in 1939. From then on, they wanted nothing to do with a war with the Soviets (and thats why they never opened up a 2nd front on the Soviets like the Germans were hoping for them to).

Also, MacArthur and Eisenhower are both on record as saying the Atomic bombings weren't needed and that Japan was trying to surrender already. As you say, a good reason being the Soviets were turning their attention towards them.

[Georgy Zhukov]

The fire bombings alone killed twice as many people as the atomic bombings. The Japanese did not expect a Soviet invasion which did not occur until after the first bomb was dropped. A combination of fire bombings, atomic bombs and a threat of US and possible Soviet invasion was very persuasive.

It goes to show how incompetent Hitler was. Stalin was smart enough to let his generals do the leading while he takes credit. Hitler's generals were confident in defeating the Soviets but Hitler had the final say. The S.S. didn't help either. If anything that slowed them down even more

[Roky]

Any recommendations?

the ace of aces : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27as_des_as

[Axl owns dexter]

The fire bombings alone killed twice as many people as the atomic bombings. The Japanese did not expect a Soviet invasion which did not occur until after the first bomb was dropped. A combination of fire bombings, atomic bombs and a threat of US and possible Soviet invasion was very persuasive.

It goes to show how incompetent Hitler was. Stalin was smart enough to let his generals do the leading while he takes credit. Hitler's generals were confident in defeating the Soviets but Hitler had the final say. The S.S. didn't help either. If anything that slowed them down even more

Stalin was an evil genius who made few mistakes. The Western Allies were lucky to have the US develop the Atomic Bomb when they did. I don't think they would have stood much of a chance against the (what would have been) eventual Soviet stab in the back with conventional arms.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Axl owns dexter

[Georgy Zhukov]

Fuck, can you imagine if Patton lived? That guy badly wanted to fight the Soviets. I bet he could have done it too.

[Roky]

there were no "soviets" during ww2... the revolution had been defeated in 1917 by lenin, trotsky and stalin. the bolsheviks fought against the true revolutionaries everywhere around the world, in cronstadt but also in spain in 1936 (read george orwell's homage to catalonia) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

Edited September 29, 2012 by Roky

[Axl owns dexter]

Fuck, can you imagine if Patton lived? That guy badly wanted to fight the Soviets. I bet he could have done it too.

Haha, yeah, he wanted to rearm the Germans ASAP and fight alongside them. The political establishment and the mood of the country probably wouldn't have gone for it though.

there were no "soviets" during ww2... the revolution had been defeated in 1917 by lenin, trotsky and stalin. the bolsheviks fought against the true revolutionaries everywhere around the world, in cronstadt but also in spain in 1936 (read george orwell's homage to catalonia) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

They were still referred to as the Soviet Union from 1922-1991...

[Roky]

there were no "soviets" during ww2... the revolution had been defeated in 1917 by lenin, trotsky and stalin. the bolsheviks fought against the true revolutionaries everywhere around the world, in cronstadt but also in spain in 1936 (read george orwell's homage to catalonia) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

They were still referred to as the Soviet Union from 1922-1991...

i know. but it's a mystification.

stalinism was the counter-revolution and a state capitalism. it had nothing to do with workers' councils (aka soviets).

Edited September 29, 2012 by Roky

[Jackie Moon]

who cares, that war was retarded. not worth my attention.

WWII is amazing though. Thank the Russians for saving the world.

[Georgy Zhukov]

who cares, that war was retarded. not worth my attention.

WWII is amazing though. Thank the Russians for saving the world.

Uh...they didn't exactly save the world. Just ask anyone in Poland. Or Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Eastern part of Germany, Albania, any of the former Soviet Socialist Republics including The Ukraine.

[Axl owns dexter]

who cares, that war was retarded. not worth my attention.

WWII is amazing though. Thank the Russians for saving the world.

Uh...they didn't exactly save the world. Just ask anyone in Poland. Or Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Eastern part of Germany, Albania, any of the former Soviet Socialist Republics including The Ukraine.

Heck, ask most people in Russia itself if they'd want Stalin back, lol.

The Soviets wanted to dominate the world and turn every country they could into a communist puppet. If that's one's definition of saving the world...but I think Jackie was just trollin.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Stalin was so paranoid that he didn't really want World Domination. He wants to create as many buffer states around him as possible. Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Mongolia. Leon Trotsky wanted the whole world in Revolution. This is a guy Stalin feared above everyone else. It was a big thing when Stalin finally killed him.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Going back to the discussion who contributed more to the German defeat of WWII I would say it is 50/50 between the Allies and the Soviets.

True, the USSR took the brunt of the fighting, lost 20 million people, fought huge battles like Stalingrad and Berlin, but they couldn't have done it without supplies from the Americans and British. The Germans took over pretty much all of Russia's industrial lands save for the Caucasus Mountains. Americans supplied the Soviets over the Arctic and across the Pacific while the British maintain lines through Iran after they secured the Middle Eastern oil fields. The British victory at the Second Battle of El Alamein forever halted eastward German expansion. If the British lost the Middle East may have fallen to Germany, granting them access to unlimited oil.

Even though Stalingrad and Kursk set them back the Germans performed a successful defense line against the Soviets that kept them from entering Europe throughout most of the war. It wasn't until late 1944 when Operation Bagration was launched that helped puncture holes in the defense line, a huge operation Stalin did want to do until after the Allies land in Normandy. Stalingrad and Kursk happened around the same time as Allied Operations in Africa and Italy which were helpful to both sides. The Normandy Invasion caused the Nazi High Command to transfer troops to stop the Allies giving Stalin more confidence to press the offensive. The Germans were able to stop the offensive losing only half the men the Russians lost.

America certainly kept the Japanese busy. Cutting off raw materials to Japan doomed their war efforts in Asia forcing them to look elsewhere, figuring by crippling the US Fleet they could be able to capture some raw material producing countries in South Asia. The Burma Road and the Hump kept the Chinese well supplied when American and British planes and trucks kept China fighting, keeping the Japanese busy from say...invading Russia. Japan may have most gravely to Russia in 1939 but the disastrous Russian defeat in the Finnish War and their failed operations during the early stages of Barbarossa would may have lead to Japan wanting to commit another Mukden and Tsushima. Instead they were kept busy by Chinese and Americans in the Pacific.

Berlin was a huge political move. Berlin was closer to the Russian lines than the allied. Eisenhower felt there was nothing to gain from capturing Berlin, taking Bavaria and Austria would have been better. The Allies had a better time in Germany since West Germany, entering it cost lives after that they ended up gaining 300,000 prisoners. They halted their advance while the Russians destroy Berlin, a satisfying end to the Great Patriotic War but much of the Nazi High Command surrendered to the Allies in hope of better treatment.

I think a true testimony on my 50/50 conclusion is the map of Europe after the war. Western Europe remained free and Eastern Europe became under Soviet control and eventually formed the Warsaw Pact. It can be said that the war started in 1914 and lasted to 1991 when the Soviet Union fell.