Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise

(01-28-2016, 11:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]I am not going to take the time to read all of this, but I am sure you are wrong about something in there.

That's probably a safe bet.

(01-27-2016, 03:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]t think they lost because Hitler refused to listen to anyo9ne who told him he was wrong.  Instead of listening to all of them he developed paranoid delusions to explain how everyone else was wrong and he was the only one who could see the truth.

Hitler was crazy.

Who's that sound like?

(01-27-2016, 05:58 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: [ -> ]The treaty was broke before it was even signed. Invading the Soviet Union was the whole point of the war: German "elbow room". And if Hitler didn't break it first (which he wasn't about to let that happen), then Stalin most assuredly would have. Both countries had invasion plans drawn against the other when Ribbentrop and Molotov made the agreement.



Hitler did listen to his generals. He just didn't always listen to the right ones, and in particular, at the right times. Most of Hitlers' time was spent meeting with commanders and reviewing situations and and their plans.

Case in point: Rommel. Rommel was one of Hitler's favorites. And he was a good 'tactical' leader. But Rommel was not good at strategic level thinking. He should have never been a corp or army level commander. He was pretty much universally disliked by his superiors and peers in the German High Command for his strategic incompetence.

Stallin was killing his generals and the Russian army wasn't much of anything, he wasn't well-equipped and his army had outdated equipment/weapons, and Russia had no allies, among other reasons.

Hitler would have been better off if the Russians tried to invade.

(01-28-2016, 11:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]I am not going to take the time to read all of this, but I am sure you are wrong about something in there.

Typical Fred.

Anything that's not his original thought isn't valuable or worth reading.

(01-28-2016, 03:00 PM)Harmening Wrote: [ -> ]Who's that sound like?

The pot's calling the kettle black!

(01-28-2016, 03:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: [ -> ]Stallin was killing his generals and the Russian army wasn't much of anything, he wasn't well-equipped and his army had outdated equipment/weapons, and Russia had no allies, among other reasons.

Hitler would have been better off if the Russians tried to invade.
Typical Fred.

Anything that's not his original thought isn't valuable or worth reading.

The pot's calling the kettle black!

Just curious if we are on the same page with something that most people might not think is not relevant to the conversation, but if we are on the same page we do see the relevance.

Most participating in this thread are referencing "Soviets" whereas you and I are referencing "Russians".  A lot of people just interpret these as the same but I don't.  I'll add most people that DON'T interpret these as the same thing will think we are wrong to say "Russian" instead of "Soviet" but I don't .

So the curiosity, do you just see it as the same thing or do you have a different reason to say "Russia"?  There really isn't anything wrong if you are just using them as synonyms but just curious if you make a distinction.

(01-28-2016, 03:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: [ -> ]The pot's calling the kettle black!

That's racist.

(01-28-2016, 03:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: [ -> ]Stallin was killing his generals and the Russian army wasn't much of anything, he wasn't well-equipped and his army had outdated equipment/weapons, and Russia had no allies, among other reasons.

Hitler would have been better off if the Russians tried to invade.

Documents released after the Cold War in Russia show that the actual numbers of officers involved in the 'purges' in the 1930's were dramatically lower than the West had reported for decades. The majority of those involved were not executed, but received only short jail sentences and were returned to duty afterwards.

That is not to say that the Red Army did not have issues with their officer corps. But those problems began shortly after the 1917 revolution and were more related to the attempt to destroy traditional class identifiers in the communist system. Additionally, the Soviets had problems training officers fast enough to keep up with the pace of their mobilization and recruitment after the war began.

The Soviets had decent equipment. Their main criteria was that the equipment worked regardless of the weather and field conditions. And their stuff did just that. As far as "dated", the T-34 was the most advanced tank in the world... bar none... when the Germans first ran into it in 1941. It was superior to anything the Germans had at that time and forced the Germans to go back and develop the Panther and Tiger tanks by 1943. The Soviets responded with the KV-85 and IL-2, 3 and 4 tanks in 1944. The IL-4 had a 122mm main gun, compared to the Tiger's 88mm. The Germans countered with the Tiger 2 design late in the war, but produced very few. The Germans didn't develop new tanks because they just wanted to. They developed new tanks because their old ones were outclassed and they were desperate.

If the Soviets would have invaded Germany, it would have been later than 1942, as they were forced to wait and see what Japan was going to do in the east. And if they had invaded west, it would have pretty much gone in the manner that the rest of the war actually did go after Stalingrad.

(01-28-2016, 04:41 PM)Penn Wrote: [ -> ]Just curious if we are on the same page with something that most people might not think is not relevant to the conversation, but if we are on the same page we do see the relevance.

Most participating in this thread are referencing "Soviets" whereas you and I are referencing "Russians".  A lot of people just interpret these as the same but I don't.  I'll add most people that DON'T interpret these as the same thing will think we are wrong to say "Russian" instead of "Soviet" but I don't .

So the curiosity, do you just see it as the same thing or do you have a different reason to say "Russia"?  There really isn't anything wrong if you are just using them as synonyms but just curious if you make a distinction.

Just because I see Russia as alone in all this, whereas the Soviet Union would include the other republics that are closer to Germany, which Hitler might have been ok if he just invaded those, but he tried to go into Russia and get Moscow, which is when the cold got his army, which, as I noted, was not equipped to handle the winter or even a long conquest.

(01-28-2016, 06:48 PM)Harmening Wrote: [ -> ]That's racist.

(01-29-2016, 01:48 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: [ -> ]Just because I see Russia as alone in all this, whereas the Soviet Union would include the other republics that are closer to Germany, which Hitler might have been ok if he just invaded those, but he tried to go into Russia and get Moscow, which is when the cold got his army, which, as I noted, was not equipped to handle the winter or even a long conquest.

So we are using the word "Russia" as opposed to "Soviet" the same way.  I'm guessing we just arrived there in by a slightly different route.