The World Wars on the History Channel

Items of historical significance.

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:25 pm

Saz wrote:
eynon81 wrote:em Saz....the Germans suffered over 160,000 causalties in the fall of France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France


Less than 50k dead though. When you get along the river there were certainly several places that went back and forth for months and in which german/soviet dead would have easily gone over 50k. I would put the tractor factory up there. Stalingrad is f**k staggering man, people don't realize the true insanity of it all. You had hundreds of thousands of men fighting like rats for literally a few km of river.


oh I know, I read the book too. think that's a bit high for one building....the airfield on the other-hand:
Image
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:27 pm

Saz wrote:Again though, this is why the wars should be looked at COLLECTIVELY rather than individually. The real war in the west was WW1. Again, not to diminish what happened in france during ww2, but it really wasn't comparable to the carnage in the first world war. Looking at the conflicts as a single war I think better reflects the contributions of each nation. France suffered immensely to check german power and expansion. but most of that suffering was during the first war. Russia suffered immensely in both wars, but it was roundly beaten in the first and only came into their own during the second. The American contribution is also grossly underestimated simply by looking at casualties, so I want to be clear that's not my point. The only take away looking at the casualties is the intensity of the war. What happened in the west was a war, as the casualties demonstrate. What happened in the east...I'm not sure we have a word for that because it was just so far beyond what human beings had ever done to each other before.



Stalin summed it up already, war was won by British brains, American brawn, and Russian blood.

add French blood into the equation and you've summed up both wars.
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:28 pm

Saz wrote:
NAB wrote:I see the France invasion as akin to the close out game in a 7 game series. It puts the nail in the coffin, but there were some serious back and forth prior to getting there.


Some psychopaths want to include the first franco-prussian war as part of the conflict, and stretch this thing out to about 80 years. Fundamentally different conflicts, fundamentally different underpinnings and a 50 year gap? That's insanity, if anyone tries to tell you that spit on their shoe and punch them in the face.



who says such things?
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby Saz » Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:43 pm

eynon81 wrote:
Saz wrote:
eynon81 wrote:em Saz....the Germans suffered over 160,000 causalties in the fall of France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France


Less than 50k dead though. When you get along the river there were certainly several places that went back and forth for months and in which german/soviet dead would have easily gone over 50k. I would put the tractor factory up there. Stalingrad is f**k staggering man, people don't realize the true insanity of it all. You had hundreds of thousands of men fighting like rats for literally a few km of river.


oh I know, I read the book too. think that's a bit high for one building....the airfield on the other-hand:
Image


Well, not one literal building I guess. The Tractor Works was actually a fairly large industrial complex. The airfield I would put into the same category, along with the Steel Works.

https://chindits.files.wordpress.com/20 ... strict.jpg

I think the point remains the same. It's shocking that it cost Germany almost as much to take a few hundred meters in Russia as it did for them to take all of france.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8470
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1070 times
Been thanked: 902 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby Saz » Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:47 pm

eynon81 wrote:
Saz wrote:
NAB wrote:I see the France invasion as akin to the close out game in a 7 game series. It puts the nail in the coffin, but there were some serious back and forth prior to getting there.


Some psychopaths want to include the first franco-prussian war as part of the conflict, and stretch this thing out to about 80 years. Fundamentally different conflicts, fundamentally different underpinnings and a 50 year gap? That's insanity, if anyone tries to tell you that spit on their shoe and punch them in the face.



who says such things?


Henry Kissinger.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8470
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1070 times
Been thanked: 902 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:49 pm

Saz wrote:Well, not one literal building I guess. The Tractor Works was actually a fairly large industrial complex. The airfield I would put into the same category, along with the Steel Works.

https://chindits.files.wordpress.com/20 ... strict.jpg

I think the point remains the same. It's shocking that it cost Germany almost as much to take a few hundred meters in Russia as it did for them to take all of france.



read an oldish (1990s) article in foreign policy about how many of the veterans of Stalingrad (on both sides) can't remember the actual battle, or remember weird stuff, a Russian and German vet who were near each other could both only remember a family of quails that made a nest in the rubble where they were fighting. Most of it they'd just describe as a vague nightmare like feeling....a bad dream you can't really remember.

weird huh? you expose the human brain to too much trauma and it'll just shut it out.
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:52 pm

Saz wrote:Henry Kissinger.



well f**k him. Prussian consolidation of German territory/Napoleon III wanting to look like a bad-ass are not the same conflict as WW1.
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby Saz » Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:55 pm

eynon81 wrote:
Saz wrote:Again though, this is why the wars should be looked at COLLECTIVELY rather than individually. The real war in the west was WW1. Again, not to diminish what happened in france during ww2, but it really wasn't comparable to the carnage in the first world war. Looking at the conflicts as a single war I think better reflects the contributions of each nation. France suffered immensely to check german power and expansion. but most of that suffering was during the first war. Russia suffered immensely in both wars, but it was roundly beaten in the first and only came into their own during the second. The American contribution is also grossly underestimated simply by looking at casualties, so I want to be clear that's not my point. The only take away looking at the casualties is the intensity of the war. What happened in the west was a war, as the casualties demonstrate. What happened in the east...I'm not sure we have a word for that because it was just so far beyond what human beings had ever done to each other before.



Stalin summed it up already, war was won by British brains, American brawn, and Russian blood.

add French blood into the equation and you've summed up both wars.


Eh, it's pretty apparent to me that the British and French would have been roundly defeated on their own devices. Not to undermine their accomplishments but the facts to me seem simple: either the US or Russia could have and would have won on it's own in the long run. France certainly would not have survived on her own or with British help, and neither would Britain long term without American aid or Soviet distraction.

This is what I mean about viewing them together. Viewed individually, people start getting this idea the war was something other than a colossal defeat for Britain, France and Germany. Viewed together it becomes apparent who the winners were (USA/RUSSIA) and who the losers were (All of Europe, UK included). Ultimately the outcome for most of Europe was the same. Fall in line with America or fall in line with the soviets. The relative power of France, Germany, UK, Netherlands, italy etc was completely decimated. Had the Russians not carved off eastern Germany, France, Germany, UK etc were all about in the same, awful position by the end of 1945.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke

These users thanked the author Saz for the post (total 2):
Libertarian602eynon81
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8470
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1070 times
Been thanked: 902 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby Saz » Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:00 pm

eynon81 wrote:
Saz wrote:Well, not one literal building I guess. The Tractor Works was actually a fairly large industrial complex. The airfield I would put into the same category, along with the Steel Works.

https://chindits.files.wordpress.com/20 ... strict.jpg

I think the point remains the same. It's shocking that it cost Germany almost as much to take a few hundred meters in Russia as it did for them to take all of france.



read an oldish (1990s) article in foreign policy about how many of the veterans of Stalingrad (on both sides) can't remember the actual battle, or remember weird stuff, a Russian and German vet who were near each other could both only remember a family of quails that made a nest in the rubble where they were fighting. Most of it they'd just describe as a vague nightmare like feeling....a bad dream you can't really remember.

weird huh? you expose the human brain to too much trauma and it'll just shut it out.


The shocking thing to me is how people survived. You see some of these videos and it's like the face of the f**k moon. Nothing but rubble and fire and bodies. And then all of a sudden whistle blows and 500 russians pop out of this literal hell on earth and you just have to wonder how anyone survived in that environment for 15 minutes, let alone months and months. It truly must be considered one of the low points in human history, especially when you consider the limited strategic or tactical importance of the city itself.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8470
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1070 times
Been thanked: 902 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:03 pm

Saz wrote:
eynon81 wrote:
Saz wrote:Again though, this is why the wars should be looked at COLLECTIVELY rather than individually. The real war in the west was WW1. Again, not to diminish what happened in france during ww2, but it really wasn't comparable to the carnage in the first world war. Looking at the conflicts as a single war I think better reflects the contributions of each nation. France suffered immensely to check german power and expansion. but most of that suffering was during the first war. Russia suffered immensely in both wars, but it was roundly beaten in the first and only came into their own during the second. The American contribution is also grossly underestimated simply by looking at casualties, so I want to be clear that's not my point. The only take away looking at the casualties is the intensity of the war. What happened in the west was a war, as the casualties demonstrate. What happened in the east...I'm not sure we have a word for that because it was just so far beyond what human beings had ever done to each other before.



Stalin summed it up already, war was won by British brains, American brawn, and Russian blood.

add French blood into the equation and you've summed up both wars.


Eh, it's pretty apparent to me that the British and French would have been roundly defeated on their own devices. Not to undermine their accomplishments but the facts to me seem simple: either the US or Russia could have and would have won on it's own in the long run. France certainly would not have survived on her own or with British help, and neither would Britain long term without American aid or Soviet distraction.

This is what I mean about viewing them together. Viewed individually, people start getting this idea the war was something other than a colossal defeat for Britain, France and Germany. Viewed together it becomes apparent who the winners were (USA/RUSSIA) and who the losers were (All of Europe, UK included). Ultimately the outcome for most of Europe was the same. Fall in line with America or fall in line with the soviets. The relative power of France, Germany, UK, Netherlands, italy etc was completely decimated. Had the Russians not carved off eastern Germany, France, Germany, UK etc were all about in the same, awful position by the end of 1945.


all true.
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

PreviousNext

Return to History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron