British only D-Day

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: British only D-Day

#211

Post by Gorque » 22 Sep 2017, 13:58

jesk wrote:If Hitler, from June 22, 1941 to the end of the war, for 1,400 days, committed hundreds of erroneous decisions in military affairs, I can assume that he was not a fool, the thoughts of sabotage are more applicable. Thought seems crazy, but Hitler really wanted to lose the war. Hitler found a way to unite Europe. How Bismarck used the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 as an excuse for uniting Germany. Ornanization of the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, the IMF is all created by Hitler.
I think you mean the above were all created because of Hitler.

jesk wrote:Many, probably, watched the movie "Saving Private Ryan"? A star movie, where at the very beginning is shown (with a Hollywood sweep) the horror of the Allied landing in Normandy. Explosions, rabid firing, cries and corpses, corpses ... And all this is an ordinary American tinsel. There was no nightmare. There would have come up with something like a variant on the theme: "Oh, did not wait!" This was the beginning of the second front. This is too well-known event to describe it in detail, I'm talking about something else.
This thread is becoming more like Shaving Private Ryan: :D


Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: British only D-Day

#212

Post by Sid Guttridge » 22 Sep 2017, 17:17

Hi Jesk,

You write, "It is worth noting that the allied armies which captured the 2.8 million German soldiers up to April 30, 1945, while Adolf Hitler was still alive and resisting as hard as he could, comprised at their peak 88 divisions,[11] which amounted to roughly 1.2 to 1.4 million men. The casualties suffered by the western allies in making this contribution to the defeat of the Wehrmacht were relatively light, 164,590 killed and 78,680 taken prisoner,[12] a total loss of 243,270 to inflict a loss of 2.8 million on the German army."

Yes, and have you wondered why?

Could it be that it was because the Red Army inflicted 80% of all German battle casualties and had ripped the guts out of much of the German Army by the time the Western Allies landed?

Could the high number of prisoners left in Western Allied hands also owe a lot to the fact that the German armies in the East deliberately tried to surrender en mass in the West?

The British actually had the highest number of German prisoners at the end of the war but, even as a patriotic Brit, I would not contend that this was a true reflection of the British contribution

Sid


jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#213

Post by jesk » 22 Sep 2017, 17:52

Kingfish wrote:
jesk wrote:Thought seems crazy, but Hitler really wanted to lose the war. Hitler found a way to unite Europe. How Bismarck used the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 as an excuse for uniting Germany. Ornanization of the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, the IMF is all created by Hitler.
Yes, of course. Hitler's deepest conviction, above even anti-semitism, was anti-bolshevism, yet Hitler felt it best for the German people to be crushed by the Russian horde and to live under the Russian fist.

He must have been giddy with joy when the first salvo of Katyushas started leveling Berlin.

No, nothing crazy about that.
Hitler lied. He spoke untruth. The consequence of Hitler's anti-bolshevism was the coming to power of Communists in China, Vietnam, Cuba. All of Eastern Europe is bolshevized. Hitler's words are one thing, he did something completely different.

Image

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#214

Post by jesk » 22 Sep 2017, 17:56

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Jesk,

You write, "It is worth noting that the allied armies which captured the 2.8 million German soldiers up to April 30, 1945, while Adolf Hitler was still alive and resisting as hard as he could, comprised at their peak 88 divisions,[11] which amounted to roughly 1.2 to 1.4 million men. The casualties suffered by the western allies in making this contribution to the defeat of the Wehrmacht were relatively light, 164,590 killed and 78,680 taken prisoner,[12] a total loss of 243,270 to inflict a loss of 2.8 million on the German army."

Yes, and have you wondered why?

Could it be that it was because the Red Army inflicted 80% of all German battle casualties and had ripped the guts out of much of the German Army by the time the Western Allies landed?

Could the high number of prisoners left in Western Allied hands also owe a lot to the fact that the German armies in the East deliberately tried to surrender en mass in the West?
Germans on the eastern front from June 1941 to May 1944, before the opening of the second front, lost 1.5 million soldiers killed and missing. That's not a lot. Only young ages that have reached 18 years, per year in Germany were 500 thousand. Soldiers born in 1924-1926 fully compensated for the irretrievable losses of the Wehrmacht in the east. The real defeat began in June 1944. The Allies took more prisoners. They had better operations on the environment.
The British actually had the highest number of German prisoners at the end of the war but, even as a patriotic Brit, I would not contend that this was a true reflection of the British contribution
There is no contribution of Russians, Americans or Britons. Hitler made mistakes. The appearance of German soldiers from Norway, Yugoslavia, Courland, Italy radically changed the situation. This is a dishonest fight. Germany without Hitler could not lose it.

User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 16 Jun 2014, 22:11
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British only D-Day

#215

Post by MarkF617 » 22 Sep 2017, 18:20

Jesk said:

[quoteThere is no contribution of Russians, Americans or Britons. Hitler made mistakes. The appearance of German soldiers from Norway, Yugoslavia, Courland, Italy radically changed the situation. This is a dishonest fight. Germany without Hitler could not lose it
[/quote]

This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. There are no facts or any logic to back this up only absolute nonsence picked up from God knows where. Beevor and Hastings may be bad but have nothing on this.

Thanks

Mark
You know you're British when you drive your German car to an Irish pub for a pint of Belgian beer before having an Indian meal. When you get home you sit on your Sweedish sofa and watch American programs on your Japanese TV.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#216

Post by jesk » 22 Sep 2017, 18:24

MarkF617 wrote:Jesk said:
There is no contribution of Russians, Americans or Britons. Hitler made mistakes. The appearance of German soldiers from Norway, Yugoslavia, Courland, Italy radically changed the situation. This is a dishonest fight. Germany without Hitler could not lose it
This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. There are no facts or any logic to back this up only absolute nonsence picked up from God knows where. Beevor and Hastings may be bad but have nothing on this.

Thanks

Mark
You just did not read Hastings. The blame for the defeat of the Germans in Normandy, he laid on Hitler. In the preface to the Russian edition is written.

http://militera.lib.ru/h/hastings_m/pre.html
M. Hastings gives the characteristics of the commanding staff of the opposing forces. Among allies, they are distinguished by Field Marshal B. Montgomery (this is to be expected), D. Eisenhower, O. Bradley, a number of corps commanders and divisions; the enemy - E. Rommel, K. Rundshedt, G. Kluge. While expressing his point of view on the causes of the defeat of the German fascist troops, the author, although with reservations, adheres to the version of the sole culpability of Hitler in this. Undoubtedly, the responsibility for strategic leadership lies primarily with the supreme command, but both direct and feedback are clear-the specific responsibility and professional qualities of the commanders of the armies, corps, divisions. At Hastings, this relationship seems to be breaking. Appreciating the military art of the Wehrmacht, the German fascist generals, he contrasts Hitler with them, whose fatal decisions have brought down all their efforts. The source of this version is the Hitler generals themselves, who in their memoirs tried in this way to rehabilitate themselves for the defeats, which was especially evident in those of them whose troops were defeated on the Soviet-German front.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: British only D-Day

#217

Post by MarkN » 22 Sep 2017, 18:31

Kingfish wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:Sorry, but please...stop feeding the troll.
I'm not seeing any trollish behavior on his part.

Difference of opinion? Yes
Sticks to his guns? Sure
Way off base on some of his claims? Absolutely
Given his/her more recent musings, has your position changed at all? :wink:

User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 16 Jun 2014, 22:11
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British only D-Day

#218

Post by MarkF617 » 22 Sep 2017, 18:32

Jesk,

Which book is this? He has written a few.

Mark.
You know you're British when you drive your German car to an Irish pub for a pint of Belgian beer before having an Indian meal. When you get home you sit on your Sweedish sofa and watch American programs on your Japanese TV.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#219

Post by jesk » 22 Sep 2017, 18:39

MarkN wrote:
Kingfish wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:Sorry, but please...stop feeding the troll.
I'm not seeing any trollish behavior on his part.

Difference of opinion? Yes
Sticks to his guns? Sure
Way off base on some of his claims? Absolutely
Given his/her more recent musings, has your position changed at all? :wink:
It not I, it they write books. I just agree with them, as it seems to me, convincing arguments. The fact that Hitler is to blame for the defeat, there can be no doubt. The point about his sabotage actions, much less supporters. I expressed it and do not try to convince anyone.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#220

Post by jesk » 22 Sep 2017, 18:45

MarkF617 wrote:Jesk,

Which book is this? He has written a few.

Mark.
Overlord

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55414.Overlord

So far this is my favorite book on the subject because Hastings does not favor any side in his analysis. Instead, he points out mistakes made by all sides. The reader comes away with the idea that the Germans were masters of the tactical battlefield, but strategically incompetent.
----
Another outstanding work by Hastings on a WWII campaign, which in this case includes the Normandy invasion through the Breakout, approx. Jan-Aug 1944.

As always the author is extremely detailed. This is particularly valuable when he compares and contrasts opposing weapons (more below). It does become a little wearisome to follow as, it seems, every battalion-level or below action during the campaign is described. But this is only a minor complaint.

Hastings maintains that the German "Army" was significantly superior in battle to the inexperienced American formations, and greatly superior to the battle worn British Army. Elite units such as Panzer Lehr and SS units were especially effective. He makes a compelling case, but does acknowledge that US elite units (e.g., Airborne divisions) were as good (or better) as anything the Germans had.

He also maintains that success in ground combat is due to the vigorous actions of a few (15%, he maintains). By assigning superior recruits to the Air Force or the other combat arms, the infantry received far less talented personnel, and their performance showed.

He is especially critical of the performance of the British and American Air Forces. Their unstinting focus on the combined bomber offensive against the German homeland led to a disgraceful performance when required to support ground troops. They also absorbed a major portion of both talented recruits and industrial production.

Hastings is also critical of specific Allied weapons, such as the Sherman tank. I think he is pretty much on the mark with this, but he appears to miss some considerations. Since all US armor had to be transported great distances, smaller size and weight was desirable if not necessary.

In his critique of Allied ground combat weapons, he is strangely muted in praise of the Garand M-1. Most American battlefield commanders recognized this semiauto rifle as a critical advantage for the American soldier. Hastings rationalizes his position by his claim that only a small percentage of the forces use their weapons effectively anyway. Also, he unfavorably compares the German MG 42 with the BAR. This is a little unfair, since the BAR is a squad level, shoulder weapon, while the MG 42 crew served, mounted machine gun. He also has little to say about the outstanding Allied artillery, but has high (and deserved) compliments for the 88mm dual purpose gun. Essentially, I think his overall point about the superiority of German arms is well taken, but only to a point.
------
An excellent overview.

Much has been said about D-Day - miles of column inches, and forests of trees have died to give us a wealth of information on a crucial campaign of WW2.

Subsequently, any new article or work on the subject, will always struggle to offer any new insights. Overlord falls into this category, but as an introductory text for the layman, I can think of none better.

With his usual verve, Hastings presents a well written, concise account. Unlike some of his peers, and the prevalent post war jingoism, Hastings takes the view that the German army was a superior fighting force to the Western Allies.

It's this appraisal that sets this work above its contemporaries. On the downside, however, Hastings fails to highlight that for all their fighting prowess and tactical skill, a war of attrition doomed the German army to defeat in Normandy.

Nor does Hastings highlight that when the Germans were able to launch a major offensive against the allies later in the war (Battle of the Bulge) the Germans were soundly beaten.

None the less, it does raise some good points and tackles other issues. As has been famously quoted, a Tiger tank was worth ten Shermans, but the Americans always had eleven...

Despite this, Overlord is a powerful piece of historical writing, and the descriptions of the struggle at the Faliase gap, are amongst this book's strengths.

User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 16 Jun 2014, 22:11
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British only D-Day

#221

Post by MarkF617 » 22 Sep 2017, 19:25

Don't remember that preface. What I do remember is a book which is very biased towards the Germans. Busy now so will hopefully get back with a more thourough review later but basically the book makes good toilet paper not not much use for anything else.

Mark
You know you're British when you drive your German car to an Irish pub for a pint of Belgian beer before having an Indian meal. When you get home you sit on your Sweedish sofa and watch American programs on your Japanese TV.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: British only D-Day

#222

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Sep 2017, 19:46

Who would believe Russia which produces stunning things like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3oRMxT ... ig&index=9

also gave us such ill-informed people like Jesk

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#223

Post by jesk » 22 Sep 2017, 20:29

You've been on the forum since 2002, and it's annoying that jesk has come and says that he knows more than you in 15 years of discussion. But still, your youtube is inappropriate. Same Qwist..

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#224

Post by jesk » 22 Sep 2017, 20:33

A little Orwell for understanding the incomprehensible. 8-)

Image

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: British only D-Day

#225

Post by Kingfish » 22 Sep 2017, 20:34

MarkN wrote:
Kingfish wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:Sorry, but please...stop feeding the troll.
I'm not seeing any trollish behavior on his part.

Difference of opinion? Yes
Sticks to his guns? Sure
Way off base on some of his claims? Absolutely
Given his/her more recent musings, has your position changed at all? :wink:
Yes, on the way off base part.
He is now way off ball park.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Locked

Return to “What if”