The World Wars on the History Channel

Items of historical significance.

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby battleax86 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 3:17 am

eynon81 wrote:
battleax86 wrote:
Saz wrote:
Professor wrote:
The Dharma Bum wrote:The allies weren't really getting anywhere until the Germans attacked Russia and they joined the Allied cause in 1941. They stopped the Wehrmacht less than 50 km outside of Moscow and then fought them every step of the way back to Berlin at the cost of 8.7 Russian servicemen. The German invasion of Russian also killed roughly 26.6 million Russian civilians.

The tank battles in the Eastern theater where the largest in history and the decisive Russian victory at Stalingrad in '42-3 was arguably the most important in military history. This battle was the beginning of the end for the Nazi war machine.


Yeah, you hear rumors of these battles. Some of the names of them. But, the "Battle of Stalingrad" has nowhere near the ring as "Battle of the Bulge" or half a dozen other Western Front battles.

I don't mean this to be "America bashing", as I'm proud of our part in the war. But, I wish it was a bit more balanced.


Dude, the Battle of Stalingrad is literally THE BATTLE. Nothing else compares. To anyone with any sense of military history, the battle of the bulge was a f**k skirmish compared to Stalingrad. The battle of Kursk is the (and probably will forever be) the greatest, largest and most epic tank battle in the history of warfare.

Yeah, no. Look up Operation Overlord. The Axis suffered more casualties in the invasion of Normandy than they did at Stalingrad.


no they didn't.

120,000 vs 800,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... Casualties

It was actually 400,000 Germans for both. I'm not sure why the Wikipedia article for the Invasion of Normandy cuts off casualties at July 24th. The Operation Overlord page runs casualties through August 30th.
battleax86
Mayor
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:15 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:51 am

battleax86 wrote:It was actually 400,000 Germans for both. I'm not sure why the Wikipedia article for the Invasion of Normandy cuts off casualties at July 24th. The Operation Overlord page runs casualties through August 30th.



well I'll be damned, you're right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Operati ... aign_close


the 400,000 Germans at Stalingrad is probably low, but you got the sauce.
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 9:03 am

battleax86 wrote:
Saz wrote:
eynon81 wrote:
Saz wrote:


Eh, I don't really even consider those international. They are institutions built by American power to protect American political ideas. They are no more durable than American power itself. I think most already recognize this fact though.


n'yes but the point being that after the WWs American power because the basis for the international system (colonial system to super-power system). The Soviets sorta tried to challenge it, but the further we get from the Cold War the less that threat seems viable.


My point is these institutions are built on nothing but American power, which cannot last forever. I just don't see them being historically relevant, because there is absolutely no chance any of those institutions will survive the end of American hedgemony and there is no chance history will be kind to them.

I don't think anyone can make that statement with absolute certainty. What happens after the end of American hegemony...whether that's years, decades, or centuries from now...will depend solely on the new power that replaces it. The new superpower might have interests that align with these institutions and decide to keep them around, just under new management. We have no way of knowing.


Of course we do. You don't have to be a genius to see that China represents the largest and most immediate threat to US power. You guys are absolutely delusional if you think 99% of the world doesn't think the IMF and World Bank are American tools for American policies. This is well known, no other nation, save a few european ones, has any interest in the mission that these institutions were designed to carry out. Anyone who thinks IMF/World Bank will have a long standing impact on the world is simply delusional. These are hated institutions, and you would struggle to find institutions that are as associated with American power and empire as these two. They cannot be changed, we aren't stupid, we aren't going to allow some Indian or Chinese to run the IMF or world bank. In fact, If i remember correctly, China just recently set up it's own infrastructure bank, precisely because the IMF and World Bank continue to be run by westerners despite shifting global trade. This is exactly my point, the IMF or World Bank are no different than the Asian Infrastructure Bank or whatever China is getting off the ground. They are OBVIOUSLY tools of a certain state, so to pretend that some other country is going to carry the IMF torch when the US is gone is just a complete fantasy.

Westerners have been fooled by the whole idea of "international" institutions. Clubs run by Europeans and Americans, for europeans and americans, are not international institutions simply because we bribed and forced a few third world nations to take part in it. It's like calling NATO an international institution and having this fantasy that some other unnamed unknown country is going to come and be the predominant military power in it when America declines. That will never happen. NATO is an American run organization, and it's fortune, like that of the IMF or world bank, is completely tied to American power. It's like some of you never got the memo that this is not the end of history. In fact, the "global" institutions we have built are truly just North-American/European institutions that we have foisted upon most of the world, unwillingly or through economic threat. They will decline along with America and we replaced by the same sort of institutions, only run by Chinese or Arabs or whoever will have the most money tomorrow.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1057 times
Been thanked: 884 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby Saz » Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:16 am

battleax86 wrote:
eynon81 wrote:
battleax86 wrote:
Saz wrote:
Professor wrote:
Yeah, you hear rumors of these battles. Some of the names of them. But, the "Battle of Stalingrad" has nowhere near the ring as "Battle of the Bulge" or half a dozen other Western Front battles.

I don't mean this to be "America bashing", as I'm proud of our part in the war. But, I wish it was a bit more balanced.


Dude, the Battle of Stalingrad is literally THE BATTLE. Nothing else compares. To anyone with any sense of military history, the battle of the bulge was a f**k skirmish compared to Stalingrad. The battle of Kursk is the (and probably will forever be) the greatest, largest and most epic tank battle in the history of warfare.

Yeah, no. Look up Operation Overlord. The Axis suffered more casualties in the invasion of Normandy than they did at Stalingrad.


no they didn't.

120,000 vs 800,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... Casualties

It was actually 400,000 Germans for both. I'm not sure why the Wikipedia article for the Invasion of Normandy cuts off casualties at July 24th. The Operation Overlord page runs casualties through August 30th.


It was not.

First of all you completely ignored an additional 400,000 Axis casualties at Stalingrad. Romanians, Italians, Hungarians. Second, half the german "casualties" in normandy were POWs, the vast majority of whom made it home. Meanwhile, the germans sent some 400k men to Stalingrad, about 5000 of whom came back alive. that's a staggering difference. The battle of normandy was simply no where near the sort of carnage that stalingrad was. More men died fighting over single buildings in that city than were lost in the fall of france.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1057 times
Been thanked: 884 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:19 am

em Saz....the Germans suffered over 160,000 causalties in the fall of France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
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 9:25 am

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.

Image
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1057 times
Been thanked: 884 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby Saz » Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:42 am

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.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke

These users thanked the author Saz for the post:
eynon81
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1057 times
Been thanked: 884 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby NAB » Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:50 am

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.
Welcome to our speak board web page
User avatar
NAB
Governor
 
Posts: 7506
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 1058 times

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby Saz » Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:04 am

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.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1057 times
Been thanked: 884 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: The World Wars on the History Channel

Postby spacemonkey » Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:28 am

The billions in the world today will insure plenty of cannon fodder for the next major world military fiasco.
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
spacemonkey
Governor
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
Location: cyberspace
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 264 times

PreviousNext

Return to History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest