Most decisive battle in WW2?

[Ollie Garchy]

Internet sites are not a valid source. You've made a fallacy in only providing the numbers for what the US sent via Lend Lease while ignoring all that England sent, you also ignored everything that the Soviet Union made during the War, which would put your numbers into a context. Sorry, I don't waste more time than that on ignorant fools. As for Overy, I'm reading "Why the Allies Won" right now, an author who claims Model headed the 9th Panzer Army at Kursk, that two Panzer Divisions at Kursk had around 1,000 tanks, or that the T-34 had a crew of two, is not one to be trusted with any detailed information.

Jesus, listen to yourself..."a fallacy in only providing the numbers for what the US sent via Lend Lease while ignoring all that England sent" and then ignoring the sum total yourself. You are the fallacy. And, you are the "ignorant fool". But, different from you, I love wasting my time on "ignorant fools".

 

[Ollie Garchy]

The only internet site I would trust would be one which has the archives as its source. Wikipedia is not that site. Lend Lease was not felt in significant amounts until 1943 by which time all three turning points had already occurred on the Eastern Front. It helped, it was not critical or decisive.

Look Kunikov...and listen to your own words..."Lend Lease was not felt in significant amounts until 1943". Lord have mercy, 1943 was a sort of important year.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

"compiled and published by a former Soviet general, Grigoriy Krivosheev. I attach a link to a table which I invite you to read. The numbers can only be described as staggering."



Impressive figures, Doppleganger, but your conclusions have to questioned, because you conclude that EVERYresult was brought about by Russian LUCK. It then follows that on every score, the Germans were UNLUCKY.

That has to say something, has to tell us something, about aims, ambitions and strategies. Bad moves are not unlucky moves, chess doesn't work that way. Remember that usually, in all things, we make our own luck.

Just a point that occurred to me on following this thread.






And why on earth do you and Ollie adopt such insulting personal attacks when they are unsolicited. Can you not frame your disagreements with Kunikov in a more respectful manner? Do his opinions not count?

The guy (and you for that matter) attacks me on a continual basis, like I am some kind of child playing in the garden. I have only returned the compliment. Being hard is ok. And, when we are at it, I think that I am probably the only REAL historian in this whole place. I get paid for writing history...how about yourselves? In any case, Kunikov will only get respect when he/or she deserves it.

 

[Del Boy]

"The guy (and you for that matter) attacks me on a continual basis, like I am some kind of child playing in the garden."


Not at all, you are obviously good at what you do, but I think you suffer from just what you accuse Kunikov of, as far as perception is concerned.

Ollie - your verisimilitude is suspect again. In fact, I do not attack you on a continual basis. In the past, on highly sensitive matters I have been re-active, returning like for like.

In your case - you mix pertinent points with highly personal and insulting slagging, which in most cases is completely unnecessary in making your point, and in fact demeans it.

I am not even attacking you here, I am trying to be helpful to you and the debate.

On a very general point, and without malice, I must respond to your remark regarding 'historians', in that David Irving, as an example, is a 'historian'; it is not always complimentary. A person may be fine at recording historical references, but very poor at interpreting situations, and conclusions. Also, his temperament may be a flaw.

Chill a little, my friend, leave the emotional stuff to fools like me.

You may lay claim to being the only true historian here, but I can lay claim to being the only emotional fool here. We don't need another one.

Incidentally, I agree that 'hard' debate, rough debate, tough debate, is fine, but it needs to add to your points, not diminish them.

I look forward to more from Kunikov and yourself .

 

[Ollie Garchy]

"The guy (and you for that matter) attacks me on a continual basis, like I am some kind of child playing in the garden."


Not at all, you are obviously good at what you do, but I think you suffer from just what you accuse Kunikov of, as far as perception is concerned.

Ollie - your verisimilitude is suspect again. In fact, I do not attack you on a continual basis. In the past, on highly sensitive matters I have been re-active, returning like for like.

In your case - you mix pertinent points with highly personal and insulting slagging, which in most cases is completely unnecessary in making your point, and in fact demeans it.

I am not even attacking you here, I am trying to be helpful to you and the debate.

On a very general point, and without malice, I must respond to your remark regarding 'historians', in that David Irving, as an example, is a 'historian'; it is not always complimentary. A person may be fine at recording historical references, but very poor at interpreting situations, and conclusions. Also, his temperament may be a flaw.

Chill a little, my friend, leave the emotional stuff to fools like me.

You may lay claim to being the only true historian here, but I can lay claim to being the only emotional fool here. We don't need another one.

I will take your advice, Del, and chill a bit. One thing, though. David Irving is not an historian. He is a journalist who wrote history at one point in his life. He once wrote good history, but he turned himself into a pumpkin by attaching himself to Hitler.

 

[Kunikov]

The table I linked to was taken directly from Krivosheev...

Once again, how is it that you can quote Krivosheev and then write something like the following: "I am quoting this from memory but I believe that for every 1 British or American soldier who died in WW2, 20 German soldiers died and 85 Russian soldiers died."

Are you really that blind that you cannot see the contradiction and ignorance of that statement? Worse so since you have something to look at when it comes to Soviet casualties.

 

[Kunikov]

Look Kunikov...and listen to your own words..."Lend Lease was not felt in significant amounts until 1943". Lord have mercy, 1943 was a sort of important year.

By 1943 the war was decided, as I have already pointed out, Lend Lease helped bring the war to a quicker end, it was not decisive.

 

[Kunikov]

The guy (and you for that matter) attacks me on a continual basis, like I am some kind of child playing in the garden. I have only returned the compliment. Being hard is ok. And, when we are at it, I think that I am probably the only REAL historian in this whole place. I get paid for writing history...how about yourselves? In any case, Kunikov will only get respect when he/or she deserves it.

And what have you written that you claim to be a 'real' historian?

 

[Kunikov]

Jesus, listen to yourself..."a fallacy in only providing the numbers for what the US sent via Lend Lease while ignoring all that England sent" and then ignoring the sum total yourself. You are the fallacy. And, you are the "ignorant fool". But, different from you, I love wasting my time on "ignorant fools".

At this point I doubt you understand what a fallacy is. I have committed none as I have offered up neither argument or data, rather I have address your fallacies and lack of contextual input for the data that you have copy and pasted from wikipedia.

 

[Doppleganger]

Once again, how is it that you can quote Krivosheev and then write something like the following: "I am quoting this from memory but I believe that for every 1 British or American soldier who died in WW2, 20 German soldiers died and 85 Russian soldiers died."

Well I was quoting it from memory right? Give me a break if the numbers are off. I notice you more or less ignored the rest of my post, which is indicative of the way you like to pick and choose your arguments.

So uh yeah, almost 30 million casualties of all kinds for the Red Army in WW2. I really don't need to say any more.

 

[Doppleganger]

Lend Lease helped bring the war to a quicker end, it was not decisive.

Unless you are not of the opinion that it kept the Soviet railroad operational. No railroad, no Soviet victory.

 

[Kunikov]

Well I was quoting it from memory right? Give me a break if the numbers are off. I notice you more or less ignored the rest of my post, which is indicative of the way you like to pick and choose your arguments.

So uh yeah, almost 30 million casualties of all kinds for the Red Army in WW2. I really don't need to say any more.

I don't need to address anything else because it has no context to it. You do not list the reasons for the casualties nor what they in fact represent aside from dead bodies. Your arithmetic, on the other hand, is atrocious and can easily be replied to.

 

[Kunikov]

Unless you are not of the opinion that it kept the Soviet railroad operational. No railroad, no Soviet victory.

Once more, no context given, just a baseless opinion. I'm not here for that.

 

[Del Boy]

I will take your advice, Del, and chill a bit. One thing, though. David Irving is not an historian. He is a journalist who wrote history at one point in his life. He once wrote good history, but he turned himself into a pumpkin by attaching himself to Hitler.

Let me tell you something Ollie. We had a great many explosions regarding matters we both had very strong feelings about. And sure, we did biff each other about a bit. But there were always places you did not go, and I recognised that. Exchanging name-calling I can accept, because I know that it is the question of issues which is dividing and exasperating us, and a little war is necessary fight our corner. All that - OK within reason.

But throughout all of that, you never, ever, gave me the degree of unsolicited offence that Gator gave on this forum by demeaning and insulting the fighting forces of my country , while they were standing and dying as allies of the US in Iraq.

That is what I call unforgivable.

If you check my posts, you will find that at all times I avoided ever giving offence by insulting Germany or the German people. Always my target was the Hitler regime.

I believe your work stands up in its own right, and that you can deal with your exasperation at times with a lighter -footed parry and thrust.

Hope this establishes where i stand in all this to and fro of forum business.

 

[Doppleganger]

I don't need to address anything else because it has no context to it. You do not list the reasons for the casualties nor what they in fact represent aside from dead bodies. Your arithmetic, on the other hand, is atrocious and can easily be replied to.

What the casualties represent is obvious, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Soviet Union lost appalling numbers of needless casualties in WW2.

FWIW, the quote from memory was from a new publication about the Battle of Moscow, so blame the author of that book for any faulty arithmetic you attribute to me.

 

[Kunikov]

What the casualties represent is obvious, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Soviet Union lost appalling numbers of needless casualties in WW2.

FWIW, the quote from memory was from a new publication about the Battle of Moscow, so blame the author of that book for any faulty arithmetic you attribute to me.

Where do you see me refusing to acknowledge Soviet losses? On the contrary, I provided the number for you. Secondly, quote your source.

 

[Doppleganger]

Where do you see me refusing to acknowledge Soviet losses? On the contrary, I provided the number for you. Secondly, quote your source.

Well you disagree with Krivosheev then as your number is some 3 million lower than his (assuming you mean 8 million irrecoverable losses). What is your source for 8 million?

When I find the book again I will quote the source here. I'm not saying that I agree with that source mind you.

 

[Kunikov]

Well you disagree with Krivosheev then as your number is some 3 million lower than his (assuming you mean 8 million irrecoverable losses). What is your source for 8 million?

When I find the book again I will quote the source here. I'm not saying that I agree with that source mind you.

The number includes POWs who died when in German hands, and those who returned, I count that as a separate category than those lost on the battlefield. It also includes MIAs and other categories, you did not provide enough context. Nor did you quote the enemy's losses for a juxtaposition between the two.

Here is a breakdown, past what Krivosheev gives:

The following are recognized as military deaths including POWs, also including NKVD frontier forces:

8.668 million minimum.

- 5.227 million killed in action
- 1.103 million died of wounds
- 0.556 million nonbattle deaths of which 267,000 disease, 289,000 accidents and executions
= 6.886 million

- 3.396 million missing in action
- 1.163 million unaccounted losses in first six months

= 11.444 million

LESS

- 0.940 million reconscripted from liberated territories, escaped from encirclement (okruzhentsy)
- 1.836 million POWs returned at end of war
= 2.776 million missing in action refound

= 8.668 million absolute fatal losses

 

[Kunikov]

The guy (and you for that matter) attacks me on a continual basis, like I am some kind of child playing in the garden. I have only returned the compliment. Being hard is ok. And, when we are at it, I think that I am probably the only REAL historian in this whole place. I get paid for writing history...how about yourselves?

So, going to answer my question? What have you written that you claim to be called a 'historian'? Also, I do not attack you, I attack your ignorant line of thinking.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

The number includes POWs who died when in German hands, and those who returned, I count that as a separate category than those lost on the battlefield. It also includes MIAs and other categories, you did not provide enough context. Nor did you quote the enemy's losses for a juxtaposition between the two.

Here is a breakdown, past what Krivosheev gives:

The following are recognized as military deaths including POWs, also including NKVD frontier forces:

8.668 million minimum.

- 5.227 million killed in action
- 1.103 million died of wounds
- 0.556 million nonbattle deaths of which 267,000 disease, 289,000 accidents and executions
= 6.886 million

- 3.396 million missing in action
- 1.163 million unaccounted losses in first six months

= 11.444 million

LESS

- 0.940 million reconscripted from liberated territories, escaped from encirclement (okruzhentsy)
- 1.836 million POWs returned at end of war
= 2.776 million missing in action refound

= 8.668 million absolute fatal losses

Pure BS ... dream on and smoke more crack. On the other hand, in "reparations discussions", the Sovs liked to use the figure of 20% or 40 million. Where do you get these mythical numbers...from official Sov stats? Jesus H. Christ, these stats deny almost the entire bulk of western literature on the subject. Stalin arbitrarily set numbers. But that is typical for you and your whole approach to academia -- a trust of Russia. I can only laugh. But, just for your info, I can only write (once again): We defeated you in WWI, the snow and Anglo-Saxons got in the way during WWII, but WWIII is an open question.