General Discussion

Historic NY

(40,003 posts)

28. They loss 225ooo men taking Berlin....

Reply to Archae (Reply #4)

Sat May 9, 2015, 12:10 AM

May 2015

and then went on a spree on the population after taking the city.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rachel is pointing out that the Soviets did defeat the Nazis [View all] malaise May 2015 OP

There was a huge loss of life in Soviet Union in WW2. HooptieWagon May 2015 #1

More than 20 million Soviets died PSPS May 2015 #2

Yes, they lost that many Hekate May 2015 #26

Not all of those casualties were "Soviets" Art_from_Ark May 2015 #77

And they've all been redefined as "Russia." Igel May 2015 #50

Karelians (NW RF) were tremendously sentimental re their Great Patriotic War HereSince1628 May 2015 #3

We let them take Berlin... Archae May 2015 #4

They loss 225ooo men taking Berlin.... Historic NY May 2015 #28

"Can you imagine what it would have been like invading Tokyo?" Scootaloo May 2015 #38

"Wholly unnecessary"? - Well, one objective in war is is seek the KingCharlemagne May 2015 #45

Not quite that cut-n-dried jeff47 May 2015 #76

The Japanese never had made overtures of surrender Kaleva May 2015 #83

Glad to hear she's bringing it up tech3149 May 2015 #5

Actually there were several ceremonies in Europe abd Britain today malaise May 2015 #7

And now Russia has invaded their neighbor on ethnonationalist grounds NuclearDem May 2015 #9

Yes, we're generally well-aware of the role the USSR played in WWII. NuclearDem May 2015 #6

I'm sure you're right regarding DU. DisgustipatedinCA May 2015 #10

We are special. Igel May 2015 #51

Well, it comes down to carnage, who's willing to put it forward. n/t UTUSN May 2015 #8

They took the brunt of it but we helped a lot through lend lease. One thing that I've noticed brewens May 2015 #11

Maybe you can answer this for me. GGJohn May 2015 #12

I have no reason to believe you are lying. I'm sure it is true that you have been told that. :) brewens May 2015 #13

No, not lying, genuinely curious as to whether or not this was true. GGJohn May 2015 #14

From what I have read, I doubt it. I'm surprised it's not written up somewhere that he claimed it brewens May 2015 #15

Thanks. GGJohn May 2015 #16

He pretty much had to. What he wrote and spoke about in the 20s and 30s pretty MillennialDem May 2015 #31

Agreed. GGJohn May 2015 #32

I disagree - if Hitler didn't invade the Soviet Union, Germany probably would MillennialDem May 2015 #34

I bow to your much better knowledge of those events. GGJohn May 2015 #35

wasn't Hitler delayed like 6 weeks invading the Balkans? krispos42 May 2015 #47

That might have helped, but maybe not. The rasputitsa (mud) is a huge problem in MillennialDem May 2015 #52

Klotzen, nicht kleckern malthaussen May 2015 #56

Well, technically speaking, Hitler's biggest blunder was bailing Mussolini's ass out KingCharlemagne May 2015 #46

Difficult to define Hitler's "biggest blunder," malthaussen May 2015 #67

If you read Mein Kampf (in summary is good enough for non-professionals) cemaphonic May 2015 #81

As a kid, I learned a lot about the part the USA [layed before I even had a clue what brewens May 2015 #18

I think Hitler appreciated the tactical results of Pearl Harbor exboyfil May 2015 #43

Shhh, you're not allowed to point that out. malthaussen May 2015 #58

Per John Toland's biography, Hitler was thrilled by the Japanese attack hatrack May 2015 #84

Germany's relation with Japan seem one sided. . . Springslips May 2015 #86

I doubt it. HooptieWagon May 2015 #19

I agree, I think there was more coordination between Italy and Germany than between either of davidpdx May 2015 #21

Well, the coordination between Germany and Italy... HooptieWagon May 2015 #24

No, he did not. oneshooter May 2015 #22

Thanks for that info. GGJohn May 2015 #30

Which allowed the US to formalize its "Germany First" strategy Ex Lurker May 2015 #36

I think it was potential industrial capacity at that time. The big automakers went into overdrive freshwest May 2015 #41

What I have often wondered... malthaussen May 2015 #60

I think that is a good way of putting it davidpdx May 2015 #23

The U.S. provided much equipment to USSR HooptieWagon May 2015 #25

the russians practically had unlimited manpower, even if they had shortage of arms at times. they dionysus May 2015 #40

What battles are you referencing? At the decisive Battle of Stalingrad, Zhukov encircled an KingCharlemagne May 2015 #48

It was a meatgrinder. Igel May 2015 #53

Ah, I got you. But it was no one-sided meat grinder, as the Wehrmacht fed almost KingCharlemagne May 2015 #54

I disagree with your assessment of MacArthur. malthaussen May 2015 #61

Ah well, I'm no Clausewitz myself, so am relying on others' assessments. But I believe KingCharlemagne May 2015 #70

Considered brilliant, yes... malthaussen May 2015 #71

Understood. It's an interesting point you raise about Mac-hype. I'm KingCharlemagne May 2015 #72

Thanks! Should be interesting. malthaussen May 2015 #87

I find the opposite is often true. I bet if you polled people on the street at random most people MillennialDem May 2015 #29

There are always going to be people that are ignorant of history davidpdx May 2015 #37

It's not as though the US did nothing (also, please don't ignore the UK's efforts, which were MillennialDem May 2015 #39

The U.S., UK and western allies were dinking around down in North AFrica while the KingCharlemagne May 2015 #49

The numbers are disputed. Igel May 2015 #55

I apologize for my verbal sloppiness, as the figure of 26 million Soviet casualties refers to KingCharlemagne May 2015 #59

The importance of lend-lease lay less in tanks and guns than less glamorous equipment. malthaussen May 2015 #63

I know what lend lease did... but it's more of an issue of this MillennialDem May 2015 #66

Well, that's an easy one. malthaussen May 2015 #68

During Napoleon's time, Moscow was not the capital of Russia, St Petersburg was which he failed to MillennialDem May 2015 #69

I must have misstyped... malthaussen May 2015 #73

Apologies on the Napoleon thing - like I said I see it written enough that I do MillennialDem May 2015 #74

They came in from one side while we came in from the other. They made it to Berlin before we did. jwirr May 2015 #17

Sides? Who cares about what side one came through..... they faced 2/3 or more of the German army at MillennialDem May 2015 #27

Sides = sides of Berlin. jwirr May 2015 #44

Twice you've given the wrong date for Pearl Harbor Jim Lane May 2015 #80

Uh no. December 5th, 1941 is the day Operation Typhoon stopped. I was not referencing Pearl Harbor. MillennialDem May 2015 #82

Ah, thanks for the clarification. (n/t) Jim Lane May 2015 #85

Considering they gave them a kick start.... HEyHEY May 2015 #20

And for the poor people of Eastern Europe, one brutal occupation was replaced by another. tritsofme May 2015 #33

Lets not forget that the Soviets participated exboyfil May 2015 #42

One thing I have always found funny... malthaussen May 2015 #57

Westerners do that with everyone malaise May 2015 #62

the trouble with history is that it is defined by the objectives of those who write it dembotoz May 2015 #64

Unmasking the Politics of Commemoration Reclaiming WW2 polly7 May 2015 #65

Same here malaise May 2015 #75

The winners always write that they were the ones. Rex May 2015 #78

World War II lasted long after its over JonLP24 May 2015 #79