- 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: The bloodiest battle in human history ended 83 years ago today...
Posted on 2/2/26 at 12:57 pm to CleverUserName
Posted on 2/2/26 at 12:57 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
I don't remember a single battle where a division of force was successful in the face of superior numbers other than Lee and Jackson at Chancellorsville.
Austerlitz.
0
Posted on 2/2/26 at 1:05 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
I guess I never spent a lot of time thinking about his reasoning, but what was the reason for going West first and conquering instead of going East, if that's "all he cared about"
The war against France & Great Britain was due to Hitler miscalculating how far he could push both nations. He’d already gobbled up Czechoslovakia and Austria without firing a shot. In both instances France & Great Britain showed they do not want war with Germany.
Hitler gambled he could take Poland much as he’d already done in Czechoslovakia and Austria, but this time he was wrong. Both France and Great Britain declared war on Germany as a result.
Posted on 2/2/26 at 1:12 pm to Master of Sinanju
quote:
Poland was first. Then France only after the Allies declared war. He viewed the West as weak and little more than a distraction from his true goal in the east.
Poland was split up by Germany and Russia, with Russia claiming land back given to them by the Versailles Treaty. Soviets were appeased.
The Italians were supposed to keep things locked down in North Africa, and Adolf thought Spain would join the Axis powers after France capitulated. He watched how bad the Russian army fought in Finland and decided he could wipe them out as well.
Franco wanted too much in North Africa to seal the deal and in 1941 he sent Rommel, and Erwin had the Brits on their heels. Hitler then told Franco never mind. Add to that the Japanese were knocking the snot out of British and the US was on the sidelines.
All that changed in October of 1941 when supplies from America started arriving in Russia. That lifeline, consisting of train locomotives, tractors, farm equipment, food, etc., is what saved the Soviets from destruction.
Posted on 2/2/26 at 1:51 pm to rltiger
Germany lost 1700 aircraft and 2500 aircrew personnel in the Battle of Britain. If they had those on the Eastern front I think the result may have been different.
Posted on 2/2/26 at 2:11 pm to Sam Quint
And if you can accept the Germans would have a sniper with the rank of major.
Posted on 2/2/26 at 2:34 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
I don't remember a single battle where a division of force was successful in the face of superior numbers other than Lee and Jackson at Chancellorsville.
I would say that Henry V at Agincourt Field qualifies.
This post was edited on 2/2/26 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 2/2/26 at 2:39 pm to Strannix
Stalingrad had strategic aspect to it. Capture Stalingrad and you cut off the oil coming up from Baku to Stalin and the Soviets
Posted on 2/2/26 at 3:37 pm to MidCityTiger
quote:
I would say that Henry V at Agincourt Field qualifies
I think the spirit of the question was physically separate them from the battlefield.
Henry had them left flank, right flank, and center where as Lee left 10k at Fredericksberg, had Jackson, on a long march, take men around to the union flank while he distracted the union troops with a significantly smaller force. IMO, only Jackson could have pulled it off.
Posted on 2/2/26 at 8:48 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Enemy at the Gates is a phenomenal movie
That was a great movie.
Posted on 2/2/26 at 9:19 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
There was no way for Fall Blau to have succeeded. It was a fool's errand.
I agree with this, and I also contend that the Germans weren't strong enough to conquer the Soviet Union in 1941, either.
Posted on 2/2/26 at 11:05 pm to RollTide1987
I don’t many of these 600,000 German that were taken prisoner survived. Being a German prisoner of Russia would have been the worst kind of hell. They were just going to keep you in Siberia indefinitely and work you to death. If they don’t starve or beat you to death first. The world had moved on to rebuilding and post war “peace” trying to divide up the continent and nobody was going to make a big fuss about finding German POW’s. So they just toiled away breaking rocks, forgotten about and abandoned. I’ve read a few accounts of prisoners who did survive the Russian gulags and they are incredible. Ones that survived finally returned home about 10 years after the war ended.
The Russians were savage, subhuman monsters in that war. We should have taken our cue from that but we didn’t and tried to play nice. All that got us was 45 years of The Cold War and several times where the world was almost annihilated.
The Russians were savage, subhuman monsters in that war. We should have taken our cue from that but we didn’t and tried to play nice. All that got us was 45 years of The Cold War and several times where the world was almost annihilated.
Posted on 2/2/26 at 11:31 pm to ClemsonKitten
quote:
Inb4 Nazi Whataboutism post
Oh look, it’s a leftist trying to find fascists or something on the OT
We all acknowledge that true heroes are your antifa comrades fighting the Nazis on the mean streets of Portland
Posted on 2/3/26 at 12:26 am to RollTide1987
The war was waged between 2 Psychopaths who ruled their perspective countries. Stalin just happened to have more men and women to run in the buzz saw.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 12:27 am to RollTide1987
I have a Mosin–Nagant rifle, a 1931 hex barrel. These were used during that time.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News