War talk

Remove this Banner Ad

geelong_boy said:
Being a bit harsh on FDR there mate. Even if he wanted to do more American public opinion was strongly against going to war, was it not? It wasn't until he had the pretext of Pearl Harbour that they could become involved, coupled with Hitler stupidly declaring war on the U.S. which dragged them into that theatre as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a bit harsh perhaps. But I still believe that the US should have became directly involved in the war sooner than what they did. It would have been the hard decision to make rather than the easy one, but still the right one none the less.
 
Since the discussion was moved, this now seems even more appropriate.

tumblr_mr90rfwTDy1sy769zo9_400.gif
 
Pivo said:
Since the discussion was moved, this now seems even more appropriate.

tumblr_mr90rfwTDy1sy769zo9_400.gif
Click to expand...
Great quote!

By all means, mention away. Only fair that we let the Scott monotony... erm... I mean discussion... retain its identity in its own thread. ;)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The only good thing about war is it ending.

Long may the lessons that brought it on be learned and relearned to avoid it again…
 
dazbroncos said:
The only good thing about war is it ending.

Long may the lessons that brought it on be learned and relearned to avoid it again…
Click to expand...
"Only the dead see the end of war"
 
you pick one said:
You will have a hard time selling that to any Poles on this board.
Click to expand...
Hey I know the Russians didn't exactly treat the Poles like gold but they were a hell of a lot better to them than the Nazis. Poor Poland caught the worst of both regimes.
 
BlightysCats said:
Hey I know the Russians didn't exactly treat the Poles like gold but they were a hell of a lot better to them than the Nazis. Poor Poland caught the worst of both regimes.
Click to expand...
you pick one said:
All my wife's family were all murdered by the Russians mother father grand parented and the farm taken.
Click to expand...

The general gist I get is that the Poles knew where they stood with the Nazis and their intentions, the Russians on the other hand came in as liberators but pillaged, raped and destroyed.
 
darren forssman said:
The general gist I get is that the Poles knew where they stood with the Nazis and their intentions, the Russians on the other hand came in as liberators but pillaged, raped and destroyed.
Click to expand...
No the Russians and Hitler did a deal early in the war to invade Poland jointly and split the spoils.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

you pick one said:
All my wife's family were all murdered by the Russians mother father grand parented and the farm taken.
Click to expand...
Well that's just bloody horrific...probably could've worded my post about Russia better as I was aware of their reputation for violence while pushing the Germans back. My Grandfather was a POW in Germany and Poland for most of the war....terrible times.
 
BlightysCats said:
Well that's just bloody horrific...probably could've worded my post about Russia better as I was aware of their reputation for violence while pushing the Germans back. My Grandfather was a POW in Germany and Poland for most of the war....terrible times.
Click to expand...

Very few people today - certainly here - have even the merest clue about what that must have been like.
 
BlightysCats said:
Well that's just bloody horrific...probably could've worded my post about Russia better as I was aware of their reputation for violence while pushing the Germans back. My Grandfather was a POW in Germany and Poland for most of the war....terrible times.
Click to expand...

The Ruskies are still carrying on tradition:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/alex...polonium210-leaves-long-trail-20160120-gma0lb

And they wonder why their ex satellite states want nothing to do with them.
 
On the subject of bad things Russians did, the new Blizzard podcast is about Avram Grant searching for answers about his families fate in the Gulag archipelago:

https://soundcloud.com/blizzard-podcasts
 
thejester said:
High Soviet casualty rates had more to do with the immaturity of the RKKA and the losses incurred in the first two summer campaigns of the war (and in particular Barbarossa) than a deliberate callousness, although Soviet commanders were always prepared to tolerate higher losses than Western counterparts. Once new doctrine and new leaders emerged in 42-43, and the equipment lost in 1941 was replaced, the overall ratio of Axis to Soviet casualties evened out.
Click to expand...

Do they include Soviet casualties in the Winter War (1939-40) against Finland in their overall WW2 figures? I think they lost 125,000 or so soldiers, and they were f*cked from the start because Stalin had purged a lot of the Red Army's more capable commanders (he saw them as a coup threat) just a few years earlier.

Is the Winter War considered part of WW2?
 
Geelong_Sicko said:
Do they include Soviet casualties in the Winter War (1939-40) against Finland in their overall WW2 figures?
Click to expand...
Generally no. FWIW Soviet casualties by year according to Glantz in When Titans Clashed (KIA/MIA, WIA/Sick, Total):

1941: 2,993,803/1,314,291/4,308,094
1942: 2,993,536/4,087,265/7,080,801
1943: 1,977,127/5,506,520/7,483,647
1944: 1,412,335/5,090,869/6,503,204
1945: 631,633/2,191,748/2,823,381

So the 10,000,000 KIA figure that's generally bandied about doesn't include Winter War casualties.

Is the Winter War considered part of WW2?
Click to expand...
I think the Finns do, but beyond that, no. But what exactly constitutes WW2 has always depended on your nationality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top