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.
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.
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 ?
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.