- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Pic from the Battle of Stalingrad NSFW
Posted on 2/8/22 at 1:52 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
Posted on 2/8/22 at 1:52 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
I think in the end it wouldn’t have mattered. Russia would have won a war of attrition unless the Germans developed nuclear capabilities. The whermacht was slaughtering red army soldiers by the 10s of thousands and they would just truck more Ruski’s to the front.
If Germany could've started a year earlier, they could've captured much of the USSR's production capability before it was moved east in 1941. It was mostly hubris on the part of Hitler. If he had taken the fighting ability of Slavs more seriously, he could've gone to a total war economy before the invasion, and prepared better for a prolonged battle. Thinking it would all be over by Christmas of 1941 was folly, and led to his soldiers being unprepared for the winter conditions they had to endure. His unrealistic expectations also led him to forbid his field generals to take better defensive positions - on more than one occasion. Curiously, outside the gates of Moscow when Guderian got his first orders to assume a defensive position with his Panzers, he realized there was no hope, and the war was lost. He noted as much in his diary. The date? December SIXTH, 1941.
A friend of mine joked with me one time saying, "Hitler thought his soldiers were 10:1 better than the Soviets - too bad the they outnumbered him 11:1."
0
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:01 pm to supadave3
quote:
but the book With The Old Breed
I’m going to have to read this. My grandfather was stationed in Okinawa. Joined the marines at 17.
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:02 pm to LSU713Tiger
Great video, thanks for the share
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:04 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Your timeline is way off
Germany invaded Poland 9/1/39
Germany attacks Denmark and Norway 4/9/40
Germany attacks West 5/10/40
England routes Italians in N Africa Dec 1940
Germany attacks Yugoslavia in early 1941
There was no way Germany could have attacked Russia in the Spring of 40 and allow England and France alone.
Poland then Russia next made no sense.
Germany invaded Poland 9/1/39
Germany attacks Denmark and Norway 4/9/40
Germany attacks West 5/10/40
England routes Italians in N Africa Dec 1940
Germany attacks Yugoslavia in early 1941
There was no way Germany could have attacked Russia in the Spring of 40 and allow England and France alone.
Poland then Russia next made no sense.
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:09 pm to dgnx6
quote:
I’m going to have to read this. My grandfather was stationed in Okinawa. Joined the marines at 17.
Get it. You can buy it on ThriftBooks for just a few bucks. I’ve read a lot of books on WWII and this is pretty damn high on the list. Those guys had courage that I can’t even put into words. Fantastic book.
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:09 pm to MeTarzanYouInsane
quote:
It does seem that most of what we learn about WWII in the US is about US vs. Nazi's and the holocaust but I'm sure there are many that would argue that the Eastern Front in Europe and some of the Pacific battles both had their moments of pure evil with lasting effects for decades.
The average US citizen doesn't have any real knowledge of how much worse the eastern front of WW2 was than what went down in western Europe.
The Pacific was pretty horrible on its own, but the eastern front was a whole other animal. For soldiers and civilians alike. Just horrible and the numbers prove that out.
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:11 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Never invade Russia in the winter……
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:13 pm to IAmNERD
[quote]For soldiers and civilians alike. Just horrible and the numbers prove that out.[/quote
The stories of what Soviet soldiers would do to German women as they made their way into prussia/eastern Germany is downright appalling and very sad. Sure, it wasn’t all Soviet soldiers (there were some good ones that protected the innocent) but most of them came for revenge
The stories of what Soviet soldiers would do to German women as they made their way into prussia/eastern Germany is downright appalling and very sad. Sure, it wasn’t all Soviet soldiers (there were some good ones that protected the innocent) but most of them came for revenge
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:17 pm to JohnnyBgood
quote:
Germany couldn’t cross the English Channel, much less the Atlantic Ocean.
U boats were sinking all kinds of shite in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic seaboard
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:20 pm to SmelvinRat
quote:if it was freezing cold, may have not been as bad as you think
Could only imagine the smell
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:20 pm to WWII Collector
quote:
Just throwing this out there. If Hitler had of won at Stalingrad.. All traffic and supplies would have been stopped from going up the river to Moscow from the South.. It would have played a strategic part...
I'd say the failure to take Leningrad was just as catastrophic as it allowed US supplies to enter the USSR through Murmansk/Archangel. If Army Group North had been able to take Leningrad, they could've moved east and seized the Arctic ports.
It's fumy that the whole point of Blitzkrieg was to by-pass cities and seize lines of supply - except for the propaganda victories pursued at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, none of which succeeded. Napoleon even took Moscow, and look where that got him.
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:23 pm to MeTarzanYouInsane
The western front was tame and civilized compared to the eastern front and pacific theatres
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:29 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I'd say the failure to take Leningrad was just as catastrophic as it allowed US supplies to enter the USSR through Murmansk/Archangel. If Army Group North had been able to take Leningrad, they could've moved east and seized the Arctic ports.
It's fumy that the whole point of Blitzkrieg was to by-pass cities and seize lines of supply - except for the propaganda victories pursued at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, none of which succeeded. Napoleon even took Moscow, and look where that got him.
Yes, if Hitler would have focused on taking down the giant piece by piece and not all at one time that was his best shot.
Taking Leningrad and the ports, taking Moscow or taking the oil fields and Stalingrad should have been three separate goals. Each were a major target for tactical reasons and not just for political reasons.
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:29 pm to michael corleone
Hitler the worst general ever....I mean ever
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:31 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
. The premise of the story was that Hitler was tweaking during most of the war, and it impacted his decision making process, with dire consequences on the eastern front.
Stalin and the German ambassador got drunk while detailing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
Getting hammered while deciding the fate of millions of poles
This post was edited on 2/8/22 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:32 pm to bayoudude
quote:
Had hitler left mother Russia alone it would have been a different ballgame
Russia was building up its military and Hitler knew they’d eventually break the truce. He hit them while they were weaker. He also needed the oil fields Baku to keep his war machine going.
Hitler had Russia beat. His army was within sight of Moscow in the late summer and could have taken the city before winter. Then he diverted the army south to Stalingrad and got caught by the winter, Russia regrouped and took advantage. Stalingrad turned out to be Hitlers worst decision. Had he just taken Moscow, he occupies Russia and the entire eastern front along with the oil to keep his war machine supplied. It would have been a different ballgame then. Thank God Hitler made that dumb decision to take Stalingrad, which had no strategic purpose anyways
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:34 pm to DavidTheGnome
Maybe 20 years ago I remember playing a video game like Call of Duty where you were a Communist soldier defending Stalingrad against the Hun. In the game you had to run into the battle with no weapon. Dumb. I thought. Years later I learned that was exactly how it happened. The commies were sending kids in carrying nothing but ammo and told to find a gun. If they hesitated, they ended up in one of those piles in the OP. The government first. The government second. The government always. The people are a means to an end. No more important to their leaders than a spent piece of brass in a battle where around two million humans vanished from this earth.
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:35 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:This is what people mean when they say it's disingenuous to teach American school children a version of the war that centers on a rah rah D-Day narrative. The reality is that, not only did the Soviets put the most in the meat grinder, but they also drew the higher quality troops away from places like Normandy. As horrific as D-Day was, it was essentially a cake walk compared with what many other unfortunates endured/perished from.
747,300–868,374 Casualties for the Axis
1,129,619 Casualties for the Soviet Union
Posted on 2/8/22 at 2:39 pm to Lonnie Utah
The drug they were on was Pervatin.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News