- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 73 Years Ago Today: Soviets Open the Vistula-Oder Offensive
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:10 am to stratman
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:10 am to stratman
quote:
One nuke over Moscow would be enough.
It would have probably saved lives to drop an A bomb on Moscow immediately after the German Surrender.
Millions would die as a result of the Soviet Occupation in Eastern Europe and the Caucuses
0
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:14 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
The more I study that era the more I am convinced that Patton was right. We should have taken it to the Reds. We eliminated one murdering tyrant only to leave his competition to reek havoc in Europe. We even surrendered Europe to their fate at war’s end, especially the poor Poles, who brought the west into the war in the first place. To say we and Europe got the raw end of that deal is a mild understatement at best.
If we would have expanded the war to fight the Soviet Union, I would hate to think of the consequences for East Asia. The Japanese hadn't surrendered yet, and the Russian were just beginning their fight in that theater by the time the Germans surrendered.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:18 am to GetCocky11
quote:
If we would have expanded the war to fight the Soviet Union, I would hate to think of the consequences for East Asia. The Japanese hadn't surrendered yet, and the Russian were just beginning their fight in that theater by the time the Germans surrendered.
The Ruskies were still pressing into China fighting the Japs after surrender because of one thing and one thing only .... real estate. Just think what would have happened had they not polluted the region with their Marxist drivel.
They were just as bad as the damn third Reich, but we made our bed with the devil.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:21 am to Darth_Vader
Fight the Russians? Some of y'all are forgetting where they got a huge amount of jeeps, food, and other supplies from.
Uncle Joe and FDR were pretty tight.
Uncle Joe and FDR were pretty tight.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:25 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
The more I study that era the more I am convinced that Patton was right. We should have taken it to the Reds
The US Army in Europe would have mutinied, with support of their folks at home. There was nearly a mutiny over the original plan to ship them en masse to the Pacific, which resulted in the system of rotating troops home based on length of service. When Germany capitulated, the American public considered the war in Europe over, Patton's fantasies notwithstanding.
This post was edited on 1/12/18 at 10:27 am
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:30 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
The US Army in Europe would have mutinied, with support of their folks at home. There was nearly a mutiny over the original plan to ship them en masse to the Pacific, which resulted in the system of rotating troops home based on length of service. When Germany capitulated, the American public considered the war in Europe over, Patton's fantasies notwithstanding.
That all stems from not building a case against them, and instead coddling up to the devil with lend lease from the start. However, if you could have shown the people the number of their children who had to die in Korea and Vietnam as a result, they would have changed their tune.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:38 am to Jim Rockford
This.
Minus outliers, combat effectiveness of our troops was way down at that point. Our veteran units had been run down to lucky survivors and speedy replacements with not enough time off the line to bring about cohesion.
Reports for around that time summarize soldier effectiveness maxing out around day 60 and declining to uselessness at 90+ days.
Minus outliers, combat effectiveness of our troops was way down at that point. Our veteran units had been run down to lucky survivors and speedy replacements with not enough time off the line to bring about cohesion.
Reports for around that time summarize soldier effectiveness maxing out around day 60 and declining to uselessness at 90+ days.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:39 am to Mike da Tigah
If our political leadership hadn't been hell bent on unconditional surrender we could have negotiated a settlement that would have kept the Soviets out of Central Europe. The FDR plan had only one logical outcome, and that was Soviet domination of Eastern and Central Europe.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:42 am to Mike da Tigah
There was already a case against commies.
But how are you going to oust Nazi Germany without them? Letting Poland be put under the heel was the worst. But that's on Britain and France.
But how are you going to oust Nazi Germany without them? Letting Poland be put under the heel was the worst. But that's on Britain and France.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:54 am to ZappBrannigan
It's also on Poland for being obstinate to the extreme on German-Polish territorial and population disputes.
The Poles were also a nationalist, authoritarian state prewar, lest we forget. They banked on the British and French promises of backing as securing them in any conflict with Germany and thus projected their power and interests far outside of their means and geopolitical footprint.
It's highly possible, if not probable, that the conflict of interests between Germany and Poland ultimately would have led to war either way, but the Poles clearly made a foreign policy error in reading the situation with Germany in 1939. They'd have been better off attempting diplomatic resolutions over Danzig and the Corridor than digging in their heels on those issues. There was actually anti-Communist common ground to be found between the Poles and the Germans.
The Poles were also a nationalist, authoritarian state prewar, lest we forget. They banked on the British and French promises of backing as securing them in any conflict with Germany and thus projected their power and interests far outside of their means and geopolitical footprint.
It's highly possible, if not probable, that the conflict of interests between Germany and Poland ultimately would have led to war either way, but the Poles clearly made a foreign policy error in reading the situation with Germany in 1939. They'd have been better off attempting diplomatic resolutions over Danzig and the Corridor than digging in their heels on those issues. There was actually anti-Communist common ground to be found between the Poles and the Germans.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:54 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
But how are you going to oust Nazi Germany without them? Letting Poland be put under the heel was the worst. But that's on Britain and France.
I’d say that’s on us as well, dragging our feet into the inevitable.
Lots of lessons to be taken from that whole thing, but one of the biggest was in the dangers of disarmorment and unpreparedness for conflicts in the first place post WWI. As long as man occupies this planet there will never be a war to end all wars. There will always be wars, and you’ll either be prepared or you’ll become fodder for tyrants to feast upon.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 11:00 am to ChewyDante
quote:
They'd have been better off attempting diplomatic resolutions over Danzig and the Corridor than digging in their heels on those issues. There was actually anti-Communist common ground to be found between the Poles and the Germans.
The Poles are Slavs, after all. There may have been a short term accomadation, but there was never going to be a place for an independent Slavic state in German dominated Europe.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 11:15 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
The Poles are Slavs, after all. There may have been a short term accomadation, but there was never going to be a place for an independent Slavic state in German dominated Europe.
And the Slovaks? The Rumanians? The Slovenes and Croats?
German racial policy was pretty muddy. The war itself with the hardships it placed on German resources and the greater influence it gave to racial ideologues like Himmler and his cohorts contributed to later wartime policies of harshness against Eastern Slav populations. Hitler was rather malleable and surprisingly pragmatic at times as opposed to being rigidly racially dogmatic in foreign policy.
Yugoslavia as well was in a stable relationship with Germany prior to the British backed overthrow which prompted the German invasion. It's not at all an established reality that no non-Aryan state would be permitted by Hitler.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 11:34 am to TejasHorn
quote:
Uncle Joe and FDR were pretty tight.
no they weren't
FDR recognized that the easiest way to defeat hitler was to have him fighting on multiple fronts.
FDR and Churchill knew they were gonna have problems with Stalin after the war.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 11:36 am to ChewyDante
quote:
If our political leadership hadn't been hell bent on unconditional surrender we could have negotiated a settlement that would have kept the Soviets out of Central Europe. The FDR plan had only one logical outcome, and that was Soviet domination of Eastern and Central Europe.
Are you fricking kidding me? Hitler showed time and again what he thought of "settlements"
The total annilation of fascist Germany was the only solution.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 11:37 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
FDR recognized that the easiest way to defeat hitler was to have him fighting on multiple fronts.
A monkey could realize that. That's really not the point.
quote:
FDR and Churchill knew they were gonna have problems with Stalin after the war.
FDR and Churchill had very different perspectives on the degree of problem we would have.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 11:40 am to udtiger
quote:
Hard to believe the USSR (and the Warsaw Pact) collapsed in 1991 (26 years ago).
Tigers, Bitch.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 11:43 am to jmarto1
quote:
The Soviets were scary. The numbers they could muster and the willingness to let everyone die is a formula one would not want to face
The Soviets only succeeded because they were fed with American rations, driven on American trucks, fueled with American gasoline, while firing American rifles loaded with American bullets. Without our supplies, the Russians never survive Barbarossa.
By 1945, the Soviets had re-established their food and armament supplies East of the Urals, making them less dependent on American supplies, but prior to that, we had kept them alive.
This post was edited on 1/12/18 at 11:45 am
Posted on 1/12/18 at 11:45 am to ChewyDante
quote:
A monkey could realize that. That's really not the point.
My point is they adopted the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
No one could argue that was logically flawed given the circumstances leaders in western europe faced at the time.
Germany entered the war with advantages in technology, production, and war material.
The UK, USA and Soviets were still in the throes of the Great Depression. They had to work together to face the existential threat of Germany agression.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 11:51 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Are you fricking kidding me?
No, I'm not.
quote:
Hitler showed time and again what he thought of "settlements"
How many wartime settlements did Hitler agree to and violate? This is the "appeasement" interventionist rhetoric so often mindlessly regurgitated which ignores that Hitler (and most Germans) very clearly rejected the Treaty of Versailles and it's redrawing of Europe in the interests of the victors and with the direct aim of keeping Germany in a perpetual state of disunion and weakness.
quote:
The total annilation of fascist Germany was the only solution
Well that's certainly something you and FDR agree upon. You trade an authoritarian, nationalist Germany for an authoritarian, Communist Soviet Union. The entire war and it's tens of millions of deaths achieved exactly that. And due to shear fortune we were able to avoid WWIII and nuclear apocalypse from 1945-1991.
If you believe the way it happened was the only acceptable path then I'd strongly disagree. The Allied political leadership was ALSO unwilling to accept a peace treaty with Germany absent unconditional surrender in the instance that Hitler and the Nazi regime was overthrown and replaced with another faction. Explain that moral and wise decision to me. Wouldn't want to upset our Communist buddies in the Kremlin or permit a German state that could, in the future, challenge Britain and France for resources and influence on the continent. The entire war and rise of Hitler could have been avoided in the first place if not for British and French attitudes towards Germany all along.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News