[pikachu]

By the way, if anyone is really interested in this, I'm going to reveal a big secret and announce that World War 2 was actually won by these guys:

[Paretist]

Edit:

German tanks were superior, and so was their tactical command.

Should have been:

German tank crews were superior, as was their tactical command.

Still doesn't change the meaning of my answer to your post, doesn't it?

Indeed, move on.- Paretist

Starman talks like that... - Smilin' dave

If you don't want to debate, move on. - Smilin' dave

...and you?

[Smilin' Dave]

I've figured it out, you suffer schizophrenia. You just think the voice in your head is me, and that I have secretly sent you messages through fragments of my past posts. I mean there is just no other way to explain your continuing this discussion in such a fashioned after I didn't even reply. It's the online version of talking to yourself.

FYI, there is an edit button built into the posts you make.

Finally:
- Having identified that your signature is gramatically incorrect
- You acknowledged this point and didn't disagree
- Best of all having had days to correct it (as opposed to the ten minutes or so I get to make a post)
You signature still contains the same error.

I happily apologise for my spelling and grammar errors, but could you fix your own?

Another word, you replied because you were afraid of what I would think of you if you didn't?

Actually what you thought was irrelevant, I've repeated stated I think you are worthless. In case you missed it, I've now also suggested that you are mentally ill.

Isn't that one of the best ways to expose someone when he/she is judging others using one standard, but applying a different standard for him/herself?

Not really, because you are still ignoring the context. For example Alyster just didn't know any better, Imagicnation didn't have his logic in word. As such I said different things to them.

You on the other hand insist I am wrong but present no material to prove it. Indeed, you haven't really addressed my last post to you, but instead continued to attack me, this is the definition of a strawman argument, with some possible fisking (that one is colloquial, so don't go to your dictionary) thrown in. So I will treat your situation different yet again.

Apparently you are happy to rail about individual rights in your signature (one way or another), but when I actually approach something on an individual basis, you miss it all together.

what makes you think I am some kind of obscure proto-Nazi pundit?

I've read your other posts and I've noted the way you avoid certain topics but are clearly interested in them. People are more than welcome to read your past posts in P&D.

Did I say he was my favourite?

I didn't say I had a favourite either. It's appalling when someone puts words in your mouth, doesn't it?

Anyway, what was the big picture he was driving at? That Stalin had a pre-emptive strike plan ready?

"Not that I'm interested, but I totally know about this, and I have an opinion too..."

When did Glantz have the book published that contradicted whatever the big picture Suvorov was driving at?

Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War (1998).

If the individual German tanks were superior and the European battlefields were still dominated by medium tanks at least till Kursk, then why did the medium German tanks struggle with Soviet KV and IS series tanks too and had poor all-terrain performance and why did more of these German heavy tanks probably break down due to wear and tear because of poor reliability than were ever shot down by T34s?

You quote me on your showing no context, and your reply quoting me out of context, then strung together this rubbish.

Worst of all, all the individual elements in your above quote were dealt with in my last post (and since they were all in different contexts, should not be taken as a whole in the first place). But you don't quote my recent post at all to support this twisted logic of yours (and it is your logic, since you cobbled it all together).

Is it so unreasonable for me to expose someone contradicting him/herself and getting away with it?

But I haven't contradicted myself, you have only doctored my words through misatributing quotes by changing time and context so it would appear so.

Where and when did I ever suggest that German tanks were not good solely on the basis of mobility?

Possibly in the section I quoted in my last post?

Did I ever imply they weren't? Who are you arguing with?

Snappy comeback... but only if you take the above quote in your chosen context. Taken in context of the paragraphs it was written with, and you have nothing.

and it took you more than a year to reach finally the logical conclusion of why the Soviets won, didn't it

Self aggradisement, another sign of mental illness. I already knew this, I explained it to you because you either didn't understand (fool) or pretended not to (fraud). Again, where the fuck is the context?

Does this mean then so long as one is more proficient at strategic level, the enemy being more proficient at tactical level, and to a lesser extent operational warfare will still give the enemy an overall disadvantages?

In the case study of the Soviet Union vs the Axis it clearly did. In other case studies, given different technologies, objectives etc. perhaps not. Understand now?

Why should this be another debate?

Because you claimed not to understand. You claimed to have legitimate points for discussion. We've established you probably don't, but that had to be proven (more for the reader than you or I).

So you were not comparing the Soviet Operational Warfare to the Germans?

Where did I ever say I was using a relative standard? The item you quote to highlight the 'contradiction' consists of two sentences on seperate topics (tactics and operational warfare). There is a full stop and everything.

And you shouldn't be capitalising 'Operational' or 'Warfare' in that sentence, since we are refering to a scale (adjective), not the specific Soviet doctrine (proper noun).

If not comparing in relative terms, then why even use the word, "inferior", and reuse it through the word, "again"?

The two cases in the discussion didn't exist in a vacuum, but the standards I was using to judge operational efficacy were. You will note in the first sentence I made specific reference to the standard I was using, but nothing specific in the second sentence. Were I to explain absolutely every last detail in my posts, there would be even longer than they are now.

Does this mean then you believe modern Russian tanks are more likely to get stuck in the mud than those German tanks of WW2 with their poor all-terrain performance?

I simply state they have different characteristics and can't be compared to each other. You also missed you key mistake, which is comparing Ukranian mud (as Alyster did) to Russian mud (which is known to be different).

Wasn't the black soil called black soil for nothing? Wasn't it the oily mud in the soil that made it look black!

Your vain attempt to back away from your stupid post is highlighted by your attempts to add more emoticons as you were joking all along.

It was called black soil because it looks black (even when it isn't mud, so you psuedo joke is also wrong). It's black due to chemical composition, which also makes plants grow better (what the black soil region is known for) and would almost inevitably make for worse mud for cross country travel.

So German tanks didn't get stuck in the black soil mud of Ukraine?

I didn't say this, or even imply it. This is a flat out fraud.

If the grounds are degraded faster, then would it create more mud if a platton or an entire division of tanks were passing through than mere two tanks? Another word, a platton or a division of tanks would be more likely to get stuck in the mud than just two, slowing them down even further due to stuck tanks creating traffic bottlenecks as well?

You are not getting this. The photos you post lack context, who knows exact what is going on (for example, whether it winter or autumn in the picture)? Trying to compare it with a situation in 1941 is ridiculous. What little is immediately apparent shows that further it isn't even relevant in the way you claimed.

I was talking about the effect of mud on tanks

As I pointed out, not all tanks are the same, making your link totally invalid.

So why did you tell alyster Clearly not[that mud in Ukraine made it impossible for tanks to move; they were stuck everywhere; Specially big heavy german tanks]?

As I pointed out in my last post, my post directed at imagicnation was in relation to a different topic to the response directed at Alyster.

So, executive summary time:
- You didn't read my post to create this reply, or you didn't understand it
- You recycle the same material that I have shown to be wrong or based off out of context posts, even when the context is demonstrated
- Finally when this didn't achieve your hoped for response, you insulted me further.
- Best of all you struggle with the interface of Politics Forum, which isn't exactly the height of complexity.

It really is hard to say if you are a fool or fraud. Which is why I currently believe you must be a psychiatric case.

[Russianmusicandlove]

*steps into convo. waves*

I'm new here, so I'm kinda nervous about being attacked for my reply. Anyway.

If we simply take a look at who killed the most Nazis, I think we have our answer. Under Marshall Zhukov- who led the Berlin takeover- the Soviet Union slaughtered more Nazis than any other country. Not to mention, they were in the war from the start, and not staying neutral until attacked, like some western countries.

Granted the U.S. did that for economic reason, but still. I guess I believe moreso that the Soviets contributed more to the success of the allies, than they "won" it for everyone.

[W01f]

Not to mention, they were in the war from the start, and not staying neutral until attacked, like some western countries.

[Russianmusicandlove]

*giggles* I realize my mistake now, you'll have to forgive me it was late at night when I posted. Though I will say Russia entered after the Germans broke a treaty, which is slightly more dignified than staying in the shadows to avoid economic catastrophe until the Japanese killed our boys. Right?

[Oxymoron]

Though I will say Russia entered after the Germans broke a treaty, which is slightly more dignified than staying in the shadows to avoid economic catastrophe until the Japanese killed our boys. Right?

Russia didnt enter the war they were invaded.

[pikachu]

Though I will say Russia entered after the Germans broke a treaty, which is slightly more dignified than staying in the shadows to avoid economic catastrophe until the Japanese killed our boys. Right?

Dignified in what way? More honorable? More righteous?

By the way, although it's wrong to say that USSR was in the war from the start, it is still a fact that USSR was the earliest and fiercest opponent of the Nazis, even before they came to power in Germany.

At the time when Western powers were neutral or even mildly supportive of the new German government, the USSR was already sending waves of protests, calling for armed intervention against it. The later day "leader of the free world" Winston Churchill continued to express his support towards the Nazis all the way until 1938, when he finally changed his mind and blatantly announced that "Germany is getting too strong; we must smash her."
Sounds like a good and righteous reason to start a war right there.

Russia didnt enter the war they were invaded.

Are you drunk? :P

[Oxymoron]

Are you drunk? :P

What the hell are you talking about>

[W01f]

What the hell are you talking about>

I think he's referring to the questionable implication that a country doesn't enter a war when being invaded. According to you, the USSR was never in WWII since they never entered it.

[pikachu]

I think he's referring to the questionable implication that a country doesn't enter a war when being invaded.

A country can be invaded without entering the war, like Denmark in WW2, but in case of USSR this clearly doesn't apply, so this leaves me thinking what the hell.

[Oxymoron]

Russia entered after the Germans broke a treaty

Russia was forced into war, entering means to do so by choice.

[Thompson_NCL]

The later day "leader of the free world" Winston Churchill continued to express his support towards the Nazis all the way until 1938, when he finally changed his mind and blatantly announced that "Germany is getting too strong; we must smash her."

Uhm, no. Just no.

Back in 1934 (House of Commons, Feb 7th 1934) Churchill had already began warning about Germany's growing military. He never expressed any support for the Nazi's whatsoever.

[pikachu]

Uhm, no. Just no.

Uhm yes, just yes.

Do some research, then talk.

[Thompson_NCL]

What do you mean 'do some research'?

I just cited a date when he made a speech warning the British government to increase military spending in light of the rise of Nazism. What more research do you want?

[pikachu]

I don't really want anything from you, I just wanted to point out that this:
"He never expressed any support for the Nazi's whatsoever."
is utterly false. If you would prefer to deny this, that's fine with me perfectly.

[Thompson_NCL]

Show me some evidence perhaps?

[SeriousCat]

Germany's Military Constraints & Stalingrad
The answer to the initial question in this topic is dependent on who you consider caused the downfall of the Nazi military machine. The simple fact is that Germany could not have possibly won a World War with so few allies, resources, and fighting men. To prolong the war, German forces would have to capture the oil fields in East Europe. However, Russian forces stopped the capture of those oil fields by fighting the German forces and burning all resources in the surrounding region as they retreated ("Scorched Earth" policy). At battles such as Stalingrad, Russian forces effectively stopped the German advance, even as German forces continued to defeat the Russian forces. Simply put, Germany lost the Second World War before they began. However, the addition of American military support I believe has significantly decreased the level of human tragedy and destruction on the Allies-side (and increased the human tragedy on the Axis-side).

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why is it always the Soviet Union won the war, or that the US won the war.

As far as I see it they are not mutually exclusive. The US and Western Allies could not have won the war without the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union could not have won the war with out the US. They are dependent on each other.
And because they were SO dependent on each other, to say 'what if one wasn't in the war' is just a too big of a what if.

Who won the War...? The Allies (Western & Soviets) together.

[LAz]

it is still a fact that USSR was the earliest and fiercest opponent of the Nazis, even before they came to power in Germany.

Nazi Germany was the soviet union's main partner in economic trade.

The simple fact is that Germany could not have possibly won a World War with so few allies, resources, and fighting men. To prolong the war, German forces would have to capture the oil fields in East Europe.

I disagree here. Germany was at it's peak in 1941. England's days were numbered. They were idiots for stopping that bombing. They took over all of western europe asides from britain and ireland. Had they continued the way, they would have won.

It was not a world war back then. The US was not involved, though it wanted to be. The problem is that hitler got greedy and went into Russia. It is a fact that Germany would have been better off with having those resources. Germany though was GREEDY. That's why they went for that. They had plenty of farmland and oil in the non-soviet republics of eastern europe. They wanted more and ended up biting of more than they chew. Well, maybe not... if they invaded a month earlier, maybe they could have toppled the soviet union. :/