Chit Chat
Although one poster was getting a bit hot under the collar.
I probably got the credit for that by bringing up a subject concerning alleged events that happened 100 years ago.
By the way SS, a banned poster from here is posting under the name of Dr Crippen on YouTube and your name has been mentioned.
I don't need to tell you it isn't me. I post under a different name on Youtube and I haven't posted there for ages.
Is it one of the two usual threads ?
He'll be assured of a warm welcome if he ever comes back here.
can't see any under your name Crippen but Cox has been on since breedingmad was banned.
You can do that yourself under the edit tag on YouTube.
Which would be useful on here to save all the misunderstandings.
So it looks like the Betfair banned poster has used up his three usernames for now.
I should have called this the Youtube thread instead of the Hitler thread.
As was predicted by someone else within the thread.
They've made it too easy to complain now.
.
Little is said about the pact that Hitler had with Stalin during over this first part of the war.
Because Russia in theory was our enemy at the time.
In fact they were discussing pooling their forces against the allies, and were talking about how they would divide up the British Empire after we'd capitulated.
Of course Hitler double crossed Stalin and launched operation Barbarossa while Stalin was thinking about it.
I used to get off there to go fishing on the Severn Years ago. Two pubs one called the Harbour on the railway side and the Valencia across the river.
I've spent many a nights drinking there.
Seriously was something said that was out of order ? It was legitimate question, given today the Alt right and Alt left there seems to be opposing forces in all countries why not back then ?
I can understand why someone might want the thread removed because of what we were discussing.
arley a beautiful setting
a walk down the steep hill past the pub over the long river footbridge for an ice cream in the village shoppe
back to bridgnorth for a few pints in the station pub as a 2 6 4 MT tank clanks around its train
I often seem to be there when the ale festival is on !!
Funny you should say that dave.
I had a drink with the pair of them one night.
Strangely moisok was wearing a beard and glasses with a bald head (looked like a pull on mask to me)
And not allowed to bet was either in the bog or outside for a breath of fresh air when moisok was about, and the reverse was also the case.
I never saw them together.
I also read that without these vital raw materials Germany's invasion of Russia would have been impossible.
If that's true Hitler was playing Stalin for a fool.
I read that Stalin didn't fear Germany because he thought the Germans could never defeat the Russian army.
That's how the working classes operate, totally illogical .
Molotov had to hand Zuchkov his handkerchief
"We've fcuked it up ! " Stalin shouted, and disappeared for 3 days.
That's why he shot the spy who warned him, that is the dishonest way moral cowards act.
peace ..... what a lovely word, who would deny that?
war is such a coarse word. do the posh boys volunteer their own offspring for war?
Aug 22, 2017 -- 8:20PM, portmanpark wrote:
dr Crippen.....don't think that's right about hitler and stalin carving up and sharing the spoils.....stalin knew that hitler would invade eventually...........the pact bought him time and a buffer his part of Poland between him and the germans.....
The 'buffer' idea was very poor strategically . The Soviets had strong defences on their 1939 border . When they got eastern Poland Stalin had the army move up to there . So he had about a million troops stationed in an undefensible position on the new border and 100 miles back had strong fortifications with hardly anyone to man them . Hitler was a much better strategist than Stalin and Churchill , though still an amateur .The difference was the other 2 - inspite of their massive egos - did finally realize they were clueless ,and allowed people who knew what they were talking about to make the decisions on where to attack or retreat .
Aug 22, 2017 -- 10:41PM, portmanpark wrote:
ss...the finns gave the Russians a good fight.They say the finns were the only german ally who came out of the war untarnished.
The Finnish commander - Mannerheim - was maybe the best general of the war . Though not well known as they don't make movies about people fighting on the German's side.
Eisenhower kept the various allies happily working in concert
won the war with minimal casualties and no major defeat.
McArther in the Pacific campaign ( and his audacious campaign in Korea) may have been the greatest general of the 20c
And Pattons 7th army in Italy , and 3rd army in Europe.
Against an enemy entrenched in Europe and the Pacific
This was a much more difficult task than anything undertaken by the European forces
That is not what I understood lfc.
Aug 23, 2017 -- 9:56AM, lfc1971 wrote:
America had the greatest generals of WW2Eisenhower kept the various allies happily working in concert won the war with minimal casualties and no major defeat.McArther in the Pacific campaign ( and his audacious campaign in Korea) may have been the greatest general of the 20cAnd Pattons 7th army in Italy , and 3rd army in Europe.
America did not have the best generals of WWII ! Only Patton would make the Top 10 . Eisenhower won his campaigns with overwhelming advantages of men and machinery ,and was regarded as clueless in strategy by several of his subordinates . MaCarthur was nowhere near the top 20 generals of the 20th century! He was routed by the Japanese in 1941 , despite having more men , then promptly ran away (leaving his army to the care of the Japanese camps ) and returned with overwhelming superiority in numbers etc . His Korean campaign was going well enough - again it ought to have considering the resources he had - until the Chinese stepped in and took back most of what he'd gained , at which point his only idea was to drop an atomic bomb.
Manstein
Rommell
Mannerheim
Zhukov
Yamashita
Guderian
Rokossovsky
Slim
Patton
Rundstedt
Though there were always substantial forces deployed against the western allies.
That is why the American generals were the greatest in WW2, their responsibilities, and the breadth and nature and complexity of those responsibilities were much greater than any European general.
Did Hitler have most of his forces facing the western powers rather than east.
well at the end of the war German forces killed or captured by Soviet Union 5 million
german forces killed or captured by allies 8 million
These figures show that the allies were almost one and a half times as effective at neutralising German soldiers as their Russian army counterparts. (whose commanders of course didn't have to worry so much about the niceities and difficulties in taking prisoners faced by the American generals)
Aug 26, 2017 -- 10:19AM, lfc1971 wrote:
tobermory, the Asian theatre of war in WW2 was seven times larger than the European theatre. America`s mobilisation was the most complex in history and this was the task that faced MaCarthur. At the same time Eisenhower had to obtain a foothold in Europe and defeat Germany, again a much more difficult task than any facing the European powers.That is why the American generals were the greatest in WW2, their responsibilities, and the breadth and nature and complexity of those responsibilities were much greater than any European general.
Most of the Asian theatre was empty ocean . The US Navy won the decisive battles there and the British and Chinese armies killed far more Japanese soldiers on land than the Americans did . In judging generals you can't just ignore the resources available to them : Eisenhower had unlimited troops and materials and 2 years to prepare D Day . It's hardly a miracle that it came off .
Aug 26, 2017 -- 10:45AM, lfc1971 wrote:
do you know between 1941 and 42 150,000 Russians were executed for cowardice. How many American`s ? the US army was more prudent in valuing a soldiers life.Did Hitler have most of his forces facing the western powers rather than east.well at the end of the war German forces killed or captured by Soviet Union 5 milliongerman forces killed or captured by allies 8 millionThese figures show that the allies were almost one and a half times as effective at neutralising German soldiers as their Russian army counterparts. (whose commanders of course didn't have to worry so much about the niceities and difficulties in taking prisoners faced by the American generals)
Are you not aware that German armies went west in the last month of the war precisely to surrender to the Americans and British ?
They knew they would be in danger of being shot by the Russian generals, now if you think that is an example of good military leadership by the Russian generals I disagree.
I would cross them off your list of great generals of WW2 right there.
British and Chinese killed more Japanese on land than America ?
What's China got to do with it, they were defeated until America showed up.
And I think 100,000 British troops surrendered in Singapore, if it was so easy ,
Rather like the European conflict when there was the danger of 300, 000 British troops surrendering at Dunkirk.
Now that was the nature of the task facing the American generals.
Then there's the pact between Stalin and Hitler of which little is mentioned, but would have been sure defeat for the allies had it been escalated. Yet there was never any chance of that happening.
All this has to be viewed in conjunction with the causes of WW1. Supposedly precipitated by an assassination.
What was Britain doing making binding treaties with France, when France was doing the same with Russia?
Couldn't they visualise the inevitable outcome of that?
WW2 was inevitable after the conditions imposed on the Germans after WW1, so would the Germans have taken such strong issue with communist Russia without Hitler?
Could you not say the same about Saddam Dr C? Anyways I could put a lot of input into this thread but as I only type with one finger it can get a tad frustrating. What I will say is that my late father was a desert rat and fought against Rommel and his army. According to my father things never changed that much in North Africa until Montgomery was put in charge.
A cautious general by all means but a man who refused to go on the attack until he was provided with the right amount of men and equipment, eventually ending the war in NA.
I think all schoolchildren aged over fourteen should be given the choice to watch the splendid documentary The World at War. It's been over forty years since it has been made but I know I will not see a better one.
You would think a lot of lessons could be learned from it, but sadly not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03RdunM5zyk
The Americans were warned three days before the attack that something was brewing, and records show an attack was expected.
Didn't Roosevelt move the bulk of the American fleet to Pearl before the attack, and didn't an American admiral get removed for protesting about that decision?
The vulnerability of Pearl Harbour to attack along with that, has fuelled many conspiracy theories.
For an attack of that nature would give the Americans a legitimate reason to go to war.
And how fortunate that the American aircraft carriers were out at sea when the attack was launched.
The circumstances surrounding the Americans entering WW2 are as dodgy as the when they joined WW1.
Aug 27, 2017 -- 12:45PM, lfc1971 wrote:
The Asian conflict being mainly water? No that's what made it so difficult .British and Chinese killed more Japanese on land than America ?What's China got to do with it, they were defeated until America showed up.And I think 100,000 British troops surrendered in Singapore, if it was so easy ,Rather like the European conflict when there was the danger of 300, 000 British troops surrendering at Dunkirk.Now that was the nature of the task facing the American generals.
The Chinese were never defeated at all , and were holding off half the Japanese army . More Americans surrendered in the Phillipines than British in Singapore . At least the defeated British general - Percival - went into captivity with his men .The American general - MaCarthur - got himself out .
Aug 27, 2017 -- 4:56PM, The_KAMIKAZEE_DRINKING_MACHINE wrote:
Sepp Dietrich. Clearly the best General in WW2.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03RdunM5zyk
Think you will be on your own with that one ! Best General at being a Nazi maybe.
Aug 27, 2017 -- 3:35PM, stewarty b wrote:
Like who backed Hitler to enable him to gain power and for what reason?Could you not say the same about Saddam Dr C? Anyways I could put a lot of input into this thread but as I only type with one finger it can get a tad frustrating. What I will say is that my late father was a desert rat and fought against Rommel and his army. According to my father things never changed that much in North Africa until Montgomery was put in charge.A cautious general by all means but a man who refused to go on the attack until he was provided with the right amount of men and equipment, eventually ending the war in NA.I think all schoolchildren aged over fourteen should be given the choice to watch the splendid documentary The World at War. It's been over forty years since it has been made but I know I will not see a better one.You would think a lot of lessons could be learned from it, but sadly not.
The 1st Battle of El Alamein in July '42 was the one that halted Rommel . Auchinleck was the British commander . After the battle Churchill demanded Auchinleck immediately take the offensive but he said he would need 6 weeks to be ready .He was sacked and replaced by Monty , who then decided he would need 3 months to prepare an attack 
Montgomery obviously did a very thorough job , but i think generals should be given higher marks for winning battles against the odds , rather than when they have more men and tanks + air superiority.
The Chinese navy sank a total of 3 of Japan's merchant vessels.
US destroyed 20,000 Japanese aircraft . To aid China they flew in 650,000 tons of military equipment
By the end of the war the 14th Air Force had over 20,000 troops and 1000 aircraft based in China
During the course of WW2 fully 80% of Japanese battle fatalities were inflicted by US forces while only 10% by Chinese forces .
After the war the US never occupied a single inch of Chinese territory .
They sank 99 warships and 18,000 smaller vessels transporting Japanese troops and supplies along China's inland waterways. They destroyed bridges and trucks and killed over 60,000 Japanese troops preventing further Japanese atrocities and the Japanese 6th army determined it had to retreat from southern China.
You can't be too careful in the present climate.
That is true lfc but Russia were only weeks away from backing the US against Japan. Although this never happened, Stalin was not surprised when the two A bombs were dropped and he never got that information from the US...
No we could see quite enough of Russia`s help, we already saw too much.
