I'd rather be thinking
I don't see any inconsistency in my 2 statements.Originally Posted by Coldkiwi
But I do see some unfairness in your "light-hearted go at the French", and as an ardent Francophile and erstwhile resident of that country I naturally spring to their defence...
Age is too high a price to pay for maturity
Deus ex ukulele
You have my total agreement on that one!
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
Work? I want to go ride!
unfairness? is tongue in cheek not allowed anymore?
Besides, I have valid reasons for not being overly keen on them. I am quite old enough to remember the way the French Govt handled the rainbow warrior bombing and the subsequent trials/jail terms... not too mention their rather unpopular testing regime that started it all.
Their approach to foriegn policy is strangely reminiscent at times of the US - 'there are rules for you and different rules for us'.
Forum whore
Those fudge-packing, tree-hugging greenies got their just desserts...
Actually I didn't mean that. Snide comment lacking completely of substance...
Without the help of the Americans, 'victory' in Europe would still most likely have belonged to the allies via supply and movement through Russia => it would've taken a lot longer though. Remember also the Germans still didn't have a truly mechanized army. The Japanese may have been a bit harder to stop, and the pacific campaign would've had to have waited until VE. WWII could have lasted much, much longer than 6 years...
But that's just Western Historian consensus. Read a Russian history book = they teach that they were the force that turned the tides of war against the Axis.
Deus ex ukulele
And there is a great deal of truth in what they said. Unaided they fought the Germans to a standstill on the Eastern Front and had some success in driving them back to Berlin. And with no armour of any consequence, bugger all air power and extremely limited mechanised infantry. In essence they walked there!
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
e mare libertas
Do you really think the Russians would have managed the same victories in mild, sunny weather, on firm, open terrain?
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
Deus ex ukulele
That is a most excellent question. Given that they enjoyed success in entirely sub-optimal conditions and would have been able to move faster if conditions had been better, albeit with more exposed supply lines, I'd say yes. Russian military tactics were based around the premise of good old-fashioned weight of numbers and a universally bog standard, simple and reliable kit. They were also bloody good foragers and their army was prepared to endure hardships few other fighting forces before or since were able to. Mind you, dissent of any form was not tolerated!
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
e mare libertas
Yup. I love my Mosin Nagant.
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
Work? I want to go ride!
uh- which part of the whermacht that managed to take over Poland in 3 days DIDN'T arrive by wheels, rail, tracks or wings? I understood they were pretty much the most mechanised army in the world in the early 40's?
Hitcher, I think what J's hinted at is that in a Russian winter, tanks, planes etc. are much more likely to break down and therefore their advantage is drastically limited - a bit like having a 1000hp drag bike on the waihi-whangamata road! I think that on an open, dry field, the more mechanised army would've had to be very badly handled to get beaten by predominantly foot soldiers supported by a very second rate air force.
Deus ex ukulele
And the Kalashnikov AK47, 600 rounds a minute of 7.62mm. Also the AK101, 600 rounds a minute of 5.56mm. It would be easy to derive a great deal of comfort behind either!
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
Deus ex ukulele
At face value what you say is true. But don't forget that in WWII the Red Army had a decided psychological advantage when it finally decided to go on the offensive, after having ground the Germans (literally) into the ground. There would be something vaguely disquieting being in charge of a technically superior force endeavouring to quell an enemy that just kept coming at you.
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
e mare libertas
CK's point, which I agree with, is that the Germans would have waltzed right over the Russian positions in '43 ('42? I haven't reached those chapters in Churchill yet...) and offered no opportunity for a counter-offensive, had the terrain and conditions been favourable to a mechanised assault.
[Edit: OK. Googled. 1941, the Germans planned to roll right over the Russians within a few months, failed. This was summer. I quote from the BBC:
"Not until the Red Army had decisively defeated German forces in the more favourable summer weather of 1943 did the tide really turn."
Maybe the climate contributed less to the initial defeats of the Germans than I thought.
Good article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwt...n_war_01.shtml]
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
Man, you are too square.
OK, here's my tuppence worth as a keen reader of military history.
The Germans kicked Russian arse in their summer campaigns. However, Russia is so big that they were able to keep retreating almost forever (so it wouldn't really have mattered if the Germans had launched their first assault a couple of months earlier as originally planned).
The German army was only semi-mechanised. The troops were mostly on foot and the tanks were frequently miles ahead and had to wait for them to catch up so they could keep advancing. The tanks fuel and other supplies were also much slower, and as they kept advancing, the supply line kept stretching.
The Germans (well, Hitler) also made one crucial mistake, which several historians have theorised was the real turning point of the war - Stalingrad.
The urban warfare which was the result of the Germans choosing to fight here rather than concentrate on advancing, say, into the Caucausus peninsula and securing an oil supply removed their advantages (tanks, equipment, mobility, troops who were the best in the world IN THE OPEN), and handed a huge advantage to the Russians (good at the dirty infighting that is urban combat, with a natural advantage to the defender). Hitler might just as well have fed his best troops through a meatgrinder, cos that was the result.
Also, as all the best troops were fighting in the Stalingrad salient, the flanks were only held by conscripted troops from Rumania and a couple of other dodgy eastern european countries - they were not regular German army troops and were ill-motivated and ill-trained. The Russians launched a winter offensive and encircled all the best troops in Stalingrad.
Hitcher, the Russians may have been ill-equipped with tanks at the beginning of the Eastern Front campaign, but by the end of it they had one of the best tank armies in the world. The T-34 was probably the best all-round tank of WW2, and the biggest tank battle ever fought, Kursk (arguably the only time the Russians and Germans had a proper, equal, stand-up, knock-down toe-to-toe) was won by the Russians.
More info here: http://history.colstate.edu/Pate/john/kursk.htm
Whilst we're on the subject of 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys', no-one has mentioned Vichy France yet. Without wanting to bash the French (too much), they have arguably still not come to terms with the fact that a large part of their population and civil service gladly collaborated with the Germans following their (possibly premature) surrender.
The French Foreign legion mostly fought for the Germans for the remainder of the war, and the British were so (justifiably) worried that the French Navy would end up fighting for the Germans, that following the French surrender and the subsequent refusal of the French fleet to either scuttle their ships, or put them into British or Allied hands, the British Fleet bombarded and sunk them, killing several thousand French sailors. Not one of the more 'glorious' episodes of the war for either country.
Forum whore
As summed up in the post immediately above:
The spearhead of panzer and luftwaffe may have smashed the poles and arrived early, plus some amount of infantry via train to major centres, but the majority of the German foot soldiers, artillery and supplies were trasnported via horse drawn carriage, I kid you not.
The T-34 was considered the best tank of the war, and by 1944 far outnumbered the second best tank of the war, the Tiger/Tiger-II...
I'd rather be thinking
The Rainbow Warrior and Pacific bomb tests are legitimate reasons to criticise the French, just as aspects of British policy (e.g. Northern Ireland, Iraq) have also been wrong in the view of many. It is hypocritical and unfair to extend our dislike of particular actions or policies to a general dislike of a people or nation. This is just prejudice. The French on the whole are no better or worse, moral or immoral, wise or foolish than others. They just speak a different language and live their lives differently than you.
And however much the aftermath of the Rainbow Warrior affair rankles, this is Realpolitik and all powerful nations behave the same way. Delve into modern British history and you will uncover some very unsavoury actions...
Age is too high a price to pay for maturity
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks