This video puts a lot about WW2 in shocking perspective
- Thread starter Tin Cup Cowboy
- Start date
To say both the US and Soviet Union used a similar strategy is misguided...
The "meat grinder" strategy used by the Soviet Union was completely different than anything done by the U.S. Yes - our tanks were less armored, but they were more maneuverable and easier to haul across an ocean (Germany didn't have to do that). Yes, daytime bombing resulted in more casualties among our airmen - but it was done from a humanitarian stance of striking military targets more effectively (and to reduce civilian casualties). Watch the video and see how many more deaths were caused by British bombing (night bombing).
The U.S. was also in a better position to capture Berlin towards the close of the war - but Eisenhower allowed the Soviets to have it to save American casualties. And he did save America a TON of casualties doing so (probably just as many, if not more, than we lost in Okinawa). Not to mention, the US and Soviet Union both faced the possibility of war against each other once Germany and Japan surrendered - so that likely also weighed on Eisenhower's mind when allowing the Soviets to take Berlin.
People in Eastern Europe/Russia are of a different type. Human life doesn't have the same value to them. It never has. It must be something in the water (Carrie Underwood). They just have no qualms about killing people - or being killed for that matter. This last paragraph is completely my own opinion.
The "meat grinder" strategy used by the Soviet Union was completely different than anything done by the U.S. Yes - our tanks were less armored, but they were more maneuverable and easier to haul across an ocean (Germany didn't have to do that). Yes, daytime bombing resulted in more casualties among our airmen - but it was done from a humanitarian stance of striking military targets more effectively (and to reduce civilian casualties). Watch the video and see how many more deaths were caused by British bombing (night bombing).
The U.S. was also in a better position to capture Berlin towards the close of the war - but Eisenhower allowed the Soviets to have it to save American casualties. And he did save America a TON of casualties doing so (probably just as many, if not more, than we lost in Okinawa). Not to mention, the US and Soviet Union both faced the possibility of war against each other once Germany and Japan surrendered - so that likely also weighed on Eisenhower's mind when allowing the Soviets to take Berlin.
People in Eastern Europe/Russia are of a different type. Human life doesn't have the same value to them. It never has. It must be something in the water (Carrie Underwood). They just have no qualms about killing people - or being killed for that matter. This last paragraph is completely my own opinion.
I endorse your statements in the first 2 pagagraphs
The third may be correct, but ?
The third may be correct, but ?
Last edited:
I was like you
I used to be kind of skeptical about the indoctrination of leftist ideas in colleges, that is, until last week.
I tutor a student in several subjects, and one of those subjects this semester is Western Civ. The required text book for the class covers human history spanning from the Phoenicians all the way up present day. This is some 5000 years of human civilization covered in the text. The cover of the book has a portrait of a man on it. Care to guess who the portrait is of ?
Karl Marx.
Of all the people in the history of human civilization, the (American) authors of this book decided to grace the cover with Karl 17ing Marx.
Higher education....
I used to be kind of skeptical about the indoctrination of leftist ideas in colleges, that is, until last week.
I tutor a student in several subjects, and one of those subjects this semester is Western Civ. The required text book for the class covers human history spanning from the Phoenicians all the way up present day. This is some 5000 years of human civilization covered in the text. The cover of the book has a portrait of a man on it. Care to guess who the portrait is of ?
Karl Marx.
Of all the people in the history of human civilization, the (American) authors of this book decided to grace the cover with Karl 17ing Marx.
Higher education....
Saying the U.S. Was more humanitarian in the bombing raids is misleading. Firebombing of Tokyo and the the bombing of Dresden say differently.
I'm not saying the U.S. Was even close to the same scale as the USSR, but they were playing the same game. Total War.
I'm not saying the U.S. Was even close to the same scale as the USSR, but they were playing the same game. Total War.
Did you have Prof. William H. Bonnie (yes, like Billy the Kid) for an English class @ State? Or are you just madly in love with Kurt Vonnegut?
Dresden was horrible, but comparing the US tactics with those of the Third Reich & the Soviet War Machine is tin foil hat territory.
Dresden was horrible, but comparing the US tactics with those of the Third Reich & the Soviet War Machine is tin foil hat territory.
1) No bucket of turds?
2) Your second paragraph is wrong. I'm not trying to be a dick, but you might want to peruse the OT: Summer Reading List thread. US casualties, while always a concern, were not the reason the Russians were allowed to take Berlin. It was purely political. Given what the Wehrmacht did in Russia, US blinders off (plus they were the next threat), they, in a way, deserved that role.
2) Your second paragraph is wrong. I'm not trying to be a dick, but you might want to peruse the OT: Summer Reading List thread. US casualties, while always a concern, were not the reason the Russians were allowed to take Berlin. It was purely political. Given what the Wehrmacht did in Russia, US blinders off (plus they were the next threat), they, in a way, deserved that role.
Do you have a problem with this?
One of the most impressive things about WWII to me is how big and strong the military industrial complex got in the U.S. During the war. One of my history profs at State said that if the war had not ended, the U.S. Was on pace to make more airplanes than we could park, including battle losses. Same for tanks. And with the new declassified info, an nuke every 2 weeks indefinitely. That's crazy.
Sort of sounds like it.
We were building war implements for, mostly England, prior to us entering the war. Check out the Lend Lease Program.
So when we were drawn into the war, some of our capabilities were already in hand, ready to go.
Without the US manufacturing capability, and protection due to Ocean separation, things might have been much different.
One of the most impressive things about WWII to me is how big and strong the military industrial complex got in the U.S. During the war. One of my history profs at State said that if the war had not ended, the U.S. Was on pace to make more airplanes than we could park, including battle losses. Same for tanks. And with the new declassified info, an nuke every 2 weeks indefinitely. That's crazy.
Sort of sounds like it.
We were building war implements for, mostly England, prior to us entering the war. Check out the Lend Lease Program.
So when we were drawn into the war, some of our capabilities were already in hand, ready to go.
Without the US manufacturing capability, and protection due to Ocean separation, things might have been much different.
No Love for Vonnegut. But again to say we were blameless and the Russians were evil vastly oversimplifies the war. Yes Stalin was a madman. And did horrible things to his people to keep the Germans out. But it won the war. Stalingrad won the war. Not d-day. D-day saved Europe from the Russians.
Again, I'm just saying that the U.S. Knowingly sent our guys to fight with less than the best equipment. Because we could make it fast. To make it great would have meant we couldn't have made as much. And we needed all we and everyone we suppiled, needed all we could get.
But the fact remains that we has inferior tanks, airplanes, subs, and battleships( in the pacific) than who we were at war with. We counted on one getting shot while 3 more killed. Not the same as shooting those that retreat, but close. All cogs in the war machine.
Again, I'm just saying that the U.S. Knowingly sent our guys to fight with less than the best equipment. Because we could make it fast. To make it great would have meant we couldn't have made as much. And we needed all we and everyone we suppiled, needed all we could get.
But the fact remains that we has inferior tanks, airplanes, subs, and battleships( in the pacific) than who we were at war with. We counted on one getting shot while 3 more killed. Not the same as shooting those that retreat, but close. All cogs in the war machine.
No to me that is the coolest thing about the war. The fact that the USA, out of a severe depression economy, made enough material to supply 3 nations with of war material. It's crazy. Like unheard of.
We sent a lot of lend lease material to Russia too.
We sent a lot of lend lease material to Russia too.
1) Adolf had one beautiful tapestry on the subject.***
2) I agree with the above. Both sides of the political aisle are guilty of this. One side's backers are just infinitely more easily duped. I'll let you decide which one.
3) Your comment is made all the more poignant by your Orwellian handle.
Laugh all you want. Could have just as easily been Adam Smith. He had a hell of a lot more to do with Western civilization than Karl Marx. I am just pointing out that the accusations have some foundation.
I like it here. And I'm not trying to offend.
It just not black and white. It's complex. And nuanced.
Now I think the U.S. Did what it has to to win the war. And each decision weighed casualties vs the most expedient way to end the war. Some of those mean more people had to die. Some one meant the ones dieing were not Americans. Some meant it was Americans.
I believe that Stalin made similar choices, just his were more " there is no damn way they are taking my city" and "how do I kill the most Germans" not always how do I win the war.
It just not black and white. It's complex. And nuanced.
Now I think the U.S. Did what it has to to win the war. And each decision weighed casualties vs the most expedient way to end the war. Some of those mean more people had to die. Some one meant the ones dieing were not Americans. Some meant it was Americans.
I believe that Stalin made similar choices, just his were more " there is no damn way they are taking my city" and "how do I kill the most Germans" not always how do I win the war.
the major ideological difference between the United States and Hitler/Stalin era is that no matter what ******* is in office in the U.S., there is an opposite side of the aisle that's legally allowed to hate them and say so however they damn well please. Your *** would be in a concentration camp or dead as an "enemy of the state" in Germany or Russia.
I'm sure Eisenhower had casualties in mind as well...
But you're right...those dudes earned the right to have the Ruskies take their city. The bad thing is the civilians didn't earn it but paid for it - and the ones that deserved it left the civilians to fend for themselves while running as fast as possible to the Americans. I read Killing Patton - and really liked it. Will look into reading more.
And I save the "bucket of turds" for the lowest of lows. You know, the Rebels. They get that special treatment. Hitler and Stalin, though - they can have my mole crickets.
But you're right...those dudes earned the right to have the Ruskies take their city. The bad thing is the civilians didn't earn it but paid for it - and the ones that deserved it left the civilians to fend for themselves while running as fast as possible to the Americans. I read Killing Patton - and really liked it. Will look into reading more.
And I save the "bucket of turds" for the lowest of lows. You know, the Rebels. They get that special treatment. Hitler and Stalin, though - they can have my mole crickets.
We won the
war by having the most and getting it to where it needed to be in the world, the fastest. It didn't matter that it was inferior. Logistics and numbers. Anyway, towards the end of the war, the Germans' equipment was inferior.
war by having the most and getting it to where it needed to be in the world, the fastest. It didn't matter that it was inferior. Logistics and numbers. Anyway, towards the end of the war, the Germans' equipment was inferior.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Basketball
Xavier 81-63 Mississippi State: Distance shooting hurts Bulldogs in Greenbrier defeat
-
02
Maroon and White Football
Kickoff Time Change: Mississippi State vs. Auburn
-
03
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Keys to Victory vs. Auburn
-
04
Rivals Basketball Recruiting
4-star center Chris Brown commits to Mississippi State
-
05
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Auburn Q and A