MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 32 of 115 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31    32    33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115 )
Message
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 7:06:59 PM
Quote:
Quote:
The pattern is the Monarch determines foreign policy.


This is absolute nonsense.
Since the restoration of Charles II in 1660 after the Civil War and confirmed after the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Monarch is only a neutral figurehead. Sovereignty lies with parliament and foreign policy in the hands of the Foreign Minister. The monarch has no say in political policy making.

I suggest you stay by American History, of which you seem to be knowledgeable, and stay away from European History where you obviously have very little, or false, knowledge and make yourself embarrassing and cringe-worthy.

Trevor

Trevor, I suggest you read up on the Prussian-Danish War. Palmerston and Russell warned Prussia not to interfere. But when Prussia actually invaded and went to war with Denmark, Queen Victoria who was pro-Prussian told her ministers that GB was not to get involved, at all.


"When the threat of Prussian invasion was first imminent, Palmerston wanted to go to the aid of the Danes. When Victoria heard that Palmerston had informed the Prussian Minister to London, Count Bern- storEf, that Britain would aid the Danes, she sent Palmerston a letter informing him that England could not be committed to support Denmark, and that she would op- pose war over the matter (24). After the Prussian invasion of Jutland, Russell and Palmerston urged that the British fleet be sent into the Baltic as a show of force in favor of Denmark. Once again the Queen stepped in and stopped the Government from taking aCtion (23, p. 274. When it
seemed possible that the Austrian fleet would sail through the English Channel to the Baltic, Palmerston demanded that the Government take action to prevent it. Upon hearing of this, the Queen directed Sir Charles Phipps to write a letter to Palmers- ton informing him in clear terms that the sole policy of the Government must be to avoid the involvement of England in a war over Schleswig-Holstein."

The Danish-German War of 1864 and British Politicshttps://ojs.library.okstate.edu


And recall that Queen Victoria declared that GB was to be neutral in the American Civil War.

scoucer
Berlin  Germany
Posts: 3270
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 7:31:02 PM
Quote:
We can agree that GB could not produce enough food to feed its population and had to import food from the US...not Canada, which had enough problems reedit its own population.


They imported it from Russia. You know those great supporters of the Union.

Quote:
Please read about the Prussian Danish War and Queen Victoria telling her minister GB was not to get involved.


Never happened.

Of course, it wasn´t a war between Denmark and Prussia but a war between Denmark and the German Confederation whose coalition was co-led by Prussia and Austria. No way did Britain want an aggressive, expansionist seapower Denmark controlling the entrance to the Baltic. Not to mention that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was part of the Confederation.

Here an excellent video to explain it to you.

[Read More]

Trevor


----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 7:33:22 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Guys,

Just moving these topics to the new page!!!?

Check 10-24 in history!? Comments, & posts, anyone??

1929 Stock market crashes, Black Thursday! How close are we to this happening again?? What to do with your retirement!? Anyone?

1945 the UN s founded! Has it really done much to curb terrorism!? What say you??

1992 the Toronto Blue Jay's win the World Series over Atlanta! The only non US team to do it!? What did it mean to Canada? Do you remember this team?? Anyone??

10-25 in history,

1936 the Berlin- Axis is formed! Was it an effective alliance?? Comments anyone??

1950 Red China joins with N. Korea to fight the Allies in Korea! How did this effect the Korean War? Anyone??

1983 under President Reagan, the US invades the tiny Island of Grenada! Why? Was it justified!? Comments!?

10-26 today in history,

1813 the battle of Chateauguay, mostly Frenchmen turn back attempt to take Montreal!? Comments? Thanks for the informative response, George!!

1825 The Erie Canal is completed how did this aid in Westward Expansion? Was Canada building canals as well??

1881 the Clanton gang is shot down by Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, & Co., at the OK Corral! Is today's scene out west simular with all the weapons ect.??

New events to discuss? Anyone??
Cheers,
MD



BTW continue with previous discussions, by all means!?

----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 8:02:22 PM
IIRC, the Russian fleet harbored in New York and San Francisco so that they would not be bottled up in case of a war with Russia.
American Civil War . During the winter of 1861–1862, the Imperial Russian Navy sent two fleets to American waters to avoid them getting trapped if a war broke out with Britain and France.

Some country had to make up the other 50%. Might as well be Russia.

You are incorrect about the Prussian-Danish war. it was fought over Schleswig-Holstein. Palmerston sided with Denmark. Here is another citation.
The Correspondence between Queen Victoria and her Foreign and Prime Ministers, 1837-1865, Doubleday, Garden City, N. Y., 1961. pp. 379-38

Nice try though.


scoucer
Berlin  Germany
Posts: 3270
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 8:25:59 PM
Quote:
IIRC, the Russian fleet harbored in New York and San Francisco so that they would not be bottled up in case of a war with Russia.
American Civil War . During the winter of 1861–1862, the Imperial Russian Navy sent two fleets to American waters to avoid them getting trapped if a war broke out with Britain and France.

Some country had to make up the other 50%. Might as well be Russia.

You are incorrect about the Prussian-Danish war. it was fought over Schleswig-Holstein. Palmerston sided with Denmark. And please, could you cite an article and not a movie. My reference has stood the test of time.

Nice try though.


It is not a movie it is very well put together video by historians. My interest in history does not mean I want to remain in the 20th Century. Your references and books mentioned are completely out of date. And I have absolutely no interest in wasting my time looking for sources for an old blockhead who is only interested in maintaining his outdated myths and legends while dismissing the serious historical research of the last 30 years. I wonder how many websites you have been kicked off for being a general PITA.

Nice Try but FDIK
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 8:33:44 PM
BTW, you are completely incorrect about Britain and an aggressive, expansionist seapower Denmark controlling the entrance to the Baltic. The War had to do with the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein. Like the First Schleswig War (1848–1852), it was fought for control of the duchies of Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg, due to the succession disputes concerning them when the Danish king died without an heir acceptable to the German Confederation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Schleswig_War

Pesky thing those pesky facts.
Don't you hate it when the pesky facts get in the pesky way?
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 8:50:02 PM
Quote:
When offered war in 1864, GB backed off. That's a fact.


The rest of your comment is pure bovine scatology.



Then respond to the comment. I responded to yours. Couldn't you find anything to cut and paste. Pretty lazy stuff.

Why don't you fully explain, in your own words, the situation that could have led to war in 1864. And then explain the circumstances whereby Britain would have backed off.

You make a lot of posts like this that are very short on discussion points. That's a fact, NY.

NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 8:59:51 PM
George, you and I have already had an erudite discussion concerning the Laird rams and that GB realizing that they risked war with the US by building the ships. You made your points and I made my points.



scoucer
Berlin  Germany
Posts: 3270
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 9:05:23 PM
Quote:
BTW, you are completely incorrect about Britain and an aggressive, expansionist seapower Denmark controlling the entrance to the Baltic. The War had to do with the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein. Like the First Schleswig War (1848–1852), it was fought for control of the duchies of Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg, due to the succession disputes concerning them when the Danish king died without an heir acceptable to the German Confederation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Schleswig_War

Pesky thing those pesky facts.
Don't you hate it when the pesky facts get in the pesky way?


Wikipedia ?

Pesky things those facts. You just can´t always trust them. Sometimes turn out to be impostors deluding people who cannot accept that they are wrong. Facts are just the knots in the complex web of reality which is why history is not a science. FDIK

Nice try though, well sort of.
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 9:16:50 PM
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/danish-german-war

The thing is, you look at a few sources...I've given you 3 so far, and you make up your mind.

nice try though.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 9:28:50 PM
Quote:
Quote:
We can agree that GB could not produce enough food to feed its population and had to import food from the US...not Canada, which had enough problems reedit its own population.


They imported it from Russia. You know those great supporters of the Union.

Quote:
Please read about the Prussian Danish War and Queen Victoria telling her minister GB was not to get involved.


Never happened.

Of course, it wasn´t a war between Denmark and Prussia but a war between Denmark and the German Confederation whose coalition was co-led by Prussia and Austria. No way did Britain want an aggressive, expansionist seapower Denmark controlling the entrance to the Baltic. Not to mention that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was part of the Confederation.

Here an excellent video to explain it to you.

[Read More]

Trevor




Thanks for that video, Trevor. Fascinating and complex politically and culturally. I should have to watch it again because there are just so many moving parts.
I really enjoyed it. As a North American I must confess to being poorly educated on these developments.

George
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 2:09:08 AM
Here’s a nice one :

The opening of The Subway in New York City in 1904.

The Mayor of NYC was none other than George B. McClellan, son of the Civil War general !

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 6:58:01 AM
William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson, two Quakers who came from England in 1656 to escape religious persecution, are executed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for their religious beliefs. The two had violated a law passed by the Massachusetts General Court the year before, banning Quakers from the colony under penalty of death.

The Religious Society of Friends, whose members are commonly known as Quakers, was a Christian movement founded by George Fox in England during the early 1650s. Quakers opposed central church authority, preferring to seek spiritual insight and consensus through egalitarian Quaker meetings. They advocated sexual equality and became some of the most outspoken opponents of slavery in early America. Robinson and Stevenson, who were hanged from an elm tree on Boston Common in Boston, were the first Quakers to be executed in America. Quakers found solace in Rhode Island and other colonies, and Massachusetts’ anti-Quaker laws were later repealed.



n the mid 18th century, John Woolman, an abolitionist Quaker, traveled the American colonies, preaching and advancing the anti-slavery cause. He organized boycotts of products made by slave labor and was responsible for convincing many Quaker communities to publicly denounce slavery. Another of many important abolitionist Quakers was Lucretia Mott, who worked on the Underground Railroad in the 19th century, helping lead fugitive slaves to freedom in the Northern states and Canada. In later years, Mott was a leader in the movement for women’s rights.
=============================================================================================================================================

Well, so much for religious freedom.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 7:09:12 AM
Quote:
George, you and I have already had an erudite discussion concerning the Laird rams and that GB realizing that they risked war with the US by building the ships. You made your points and I made my points.





What you call backing down is really just diplomacy. A country like Britain has to decide whether it was worth going to war and it had decided early in the US conflict to remain somewhat neutral, primarily for economic reasons. It is much like the situation during the Trent Affair when the British gave Lincoln and Seward a chance to repair fences or risk war, they found a diplomatic way to resolve the issue. The US knew that the RN could swing the war in another direction and did not wish to risk it. Intelligent diplomacy.

Now I still wonder how much of a difference the Laird Rams would have made had the US and Britain gone to war and the rams were added to the RN fleet. Given that the US was quite fearful of their deployment by the Confederates I can only imagine that they would be equally fearful had the British deployed them.

US ambassador Charles Adams was on good terms with Lord Russell, British foreign minister and Adams told him that the rams were destined for the Confederacy.

The problem was that Adams had no proof and certainly the British did not. The sale was to a French straw buyer called Bravay and Company. The sale looked legitimate. Remember it wasn't the British government that was building these ships for the Confederacy. It was private ship builders.

Adams and Russell got into a tiff and insulted one another. Then Russell seized the vessels. He claimed that the seizure was always in the works before the Adams' "this is war" letter. The Americans tout Adams' courage in forcing the seizure.

And the RN wound up with two ironclads with rotating turrets and of course, vicious spikes at the bow. They only used them for ten years. I don't know why the service time was so short.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 7:35:11 AM
Quote:
It was just the presence of the US that won World War I. Recall that all the combatants were pretty much spent by 1917, and that the addition of the US brought more soldiers onto the field which turned the outcome in favor of the Allies. recall that once the US declared war, Imperial Germany made sure Lenin had free access to Russia and that the revolution took Imperial Russia out of the war . Imperial Germany had hoped to transfer troops to the Eastern front to the Western Front and create an offensive to drive France and GB out of the way before the Americans arrived.


You're telling me that US won the war simply by showing up. Certainly the arrival improved morale greatly but that alone doesn't win wars.

You do realize that those US soldiers while game were poorly trained and poorly equipped. They had a lot to learn and the French and the British devoted a lot of time to bring them up to speed on how this war was to be fought.

They contributed units to a number of French initiatives and led one battle on their own at St. Mihiel. US soldiers did well but at great cost as their commander Pershing was wedded to the idea that the American rifleman could overcome all. And so casualties were higher than they should have been.

Indeed the French and the British and Commonwealth were tired. They had beaten back the German spring offensive and the US Army 2nd div plus the marines did their part at Belleau Wood but at significant cost.

US units assisted the French at the 2nd Battle of the Marne on July 15-18, 1918. This stymied a final German push to split the French forces.

But that did not win the war. Are you familiar with the activities of the British and Commonwealth beginning on Aug. 8, 1918 until the armistice on Nov. 11?

If not you should search, "the 100 days" or the "final 100 days". That may explain to you why any claims that the US was responsible for the final victory is insulting. The British and French lost so many more soldiers than did the US that it is difficult to accept your statement as educated. Hell even the small Dominions of Australia and Canada experienced more deaths than did the AEF. They had been at it so much longer.

Had the war continue into 1919, it is certain that the US would have played a more significant role but please, do not make claims that any half interested student of this war knows to be false.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 7:50:35 AM
GB condoned the building of the ships. They knew they risked war...and they backed off. You want to call it diplomacy, go ahead. But no matter how you look at it, GB backed off to prevent a war.


NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 8:23:10 AM
It had to do with man-power. By that time in the war, all the combatants were pretty well spent, and on the Western Front, all the fighting had resulted in a stalemate as we are both aware. Those European countries had already mobilized, and there was no new source of manpower available to aid either the Central Powers or the Allies.

Once the US entered the war, the calculus changed. The Germans realized this and felt that if they could mount one more offensive to force GB and France to surrender, they woujld win the war. That is why Lenin was allowed to go from Switzerland to Imperial Russia a. Once the Russians had surrendered, those German troops were sent West.

You are aware of that lost German offensive that eventually just ran out of gas.

Yes, I agree that the US troops had to undergo more training. But once they entered the battlefield, they were the determining factor.

The entry of the United States was the turning point of the war, because it made the eventual defeat of Germany possible. It had been foreseen in 1916 that if the United States went to war, the Allies' military effort against Germany would be upheld by U.S. supplies and by enormous extensions of credit.

Realize that GB and France had suffered tremendous losses since 1914. They were pretty well spent by 1918. And in that last 100 days offensive, the Americans suffered tremendous casualties, so much so that those losses were one of the reasons the US turned isolationist during the intervening years between the war.

Now, this also played out in World War II. The Russians won the war in Europe. They did most of the dying, most of the fighting and most of the killing of German soldiers. The Normandy Invasion was insisted upon by the Americans as attacking Germany and capturing Berlin was the fastest way to end the War. By creating Western Front, the Poles, French, Brits, and Americans prevented the Russians from liberating all of Occupied Europe and installing a Communist government in the remnants of Occupied Europe.



Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 8:58:52 AM
George is right.

The Hundred Days in 1918 were won principally by the British and Dominion armies, with the Canadians making an enormous contribution. They were regarded as the shock troops of the Allied armies on the Western Front by that stage.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 9:11:05 AM
Quote:
George is right.

The Hundred Days in 1918 were won principally by the British and Dominion armies, with the Canadians making an enormous contribution. They were regarded as the shock troops of the Allied armies on the Western Front by that stage.

Regards, Phil


General John Joseph Pershing finally gave approval for the general involvement of all his troops - also under Foch - and these million troops, with millions more in the pipeline, became an important operational consideration for the future.

By the end of August there were over 1.4 million American troops in France. It was the arrival of these fresh troops that enabled the Allies to continue fighting after their significant losses during the German Spring Offensive.
The attack on the St Mihiel salient (12-15 September) was the first and only American led attack during the First World War. It was a relatively easy victory as it caught the German Army on the retreat but it established the American Army as a formidable fighting force.
With the success at St Mihiel the Americans were moved to support the ambitious attack planned by Marshal Foch at the Battles of Meuse-Argonne. This was the main contribution of the American Army in the First World War and the losses were high amongst their inexperienced troops.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/from-amiens-to-armistice-the-hundred-days-offensive


It must be baldly stated: Germany would have won World War I had the U.S. Army not intervened in France in 1918. The French and British were barely hanging on in 1918. By year-end 1917, France had lost 3 million men in the war, Britain 2 million. The French army actually mutinied in 1917, half of its demoralized combat divisions refusing to attack the Germans. The British fared little better in 1917, losing 800,000 casualties in the course of a year that climaxed with the notorious three-month assault on the muddy heights of Passchendaele, where 300,000 British infantry fell to gain just two miles of ground.

The British, barely maintaining 62 divisions on the Western Front, planned, in the course of 1918 – had the Americans not appeared – to reduce their divisions to thirty or fewer and essentially to abandon the ground war in Europe.

Prime Minister David Lloyd George refused to send replacements to Field Marshal Douglas Haig’s army on the Western Front, so controversial were Haig’s casualties.

The waning of the French and British in 1917 could not have come at a worse moment, when the Germans had crushed the Russians and Italians and begun deploying 100 fresh divisions to the Western Front for a war-winning offensive in 1918: 3.5 million Germans with absolute artillery superiority against 2.5 million demoralized British and French.

What saved the day? The Americans. The United States declared war on Germany in April 1917, drafted a million-man army (the A.E.F.) in the ensuing months, and deployed it hurriedly to France in the winter of 1917-18. In June 1918, the Germans brushed aside fifty French divisions and plunged as far as the Marne River, just fifty miles from Paris.

Marching up dusty roads past hordes of fleeing French refugees and soldiers—“La guerre est finie!”—the Doughboys and Marines went into action at Château-Thierry and Belleau Wood and stopped the German onslaught on the Marne. With Haig facing defeat in Flanders, actually warning London in April 1918 that the British had their “backs to the wall,” American troops— the manpower equivalent of over 100 French or British divisions—permitted Foch to shift otherwise irreplaceable French troops to the British sector, where a dazed Tommy, sniffing the tang of the sea air over the stink of the battlefield and apprised that Haig had spoken of British backs to the wall, replied, with a glance at the English Channel, “what bloody wall?”

The Americans saved Britain and France in the spring and summer and destroyed the German army in the fall.


The Doughboys won the war by trapping the German army in France and Belgium and severing its lifeline. Looking at 1918 in this new way, restoring the enormous impact of the U.S. military to its proper scale and significance, achieves two important things. First, it fundamentally revises the history of the First World War. Second, it brings out the thrilling suspense of 1918, when the fate of the world hung in the balance, and the revivifying power of the Americans saved the Allies, defeated Germany, and established the United States as the greatest of the great powers.

https://time.com/5406235/everything-you-know-about-how-world-war-i-ended-is-wrong/
Nice try though.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 11:07:18 AM
The 2 books I would recommend are:

The Path To War by Michael S. Neiberg

Sons of Freedom by Geoffrey Wawro
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 11:27:36 AM
No...the US did not "win world war 1".....but the entry into the war, of the US, kinda put the period on the end of the sentence.

From an American`s perspective, me, I do wonder why so many Anglo`s and Europeans are so reluctant to give credit for what the US did do. We were drawn into, not one....but two European wars in less than two decades...and in the process lost one and a half million casualties...we didn`t just send a few brigades and then brag about being a good ally in a war. We went all in....twice. Again, an American perspective...my dad was a 19 year old, the oldest of 13 kids on a farm in North Georgia. He knew little about Europe...or the world...and was only interested in starting his life on his own, and living in peace. Millions got dragged into Europe`s wars, and more than a half million died. If we want to feel that we did some heavy lifting...why shouldn`t we?

Our entry into those conflicts, the first war leading to strong isolationist feelings, and after the second, the belief that the US must police the world to ensure we don`t wind up fighting world wars again. We get guff for trying to police the world to avoid such world conflicts, and yet were expected to join the fun, and suffer the hundreds of thousands of US casualties......and get as little credit as possible for the effort. That`s one American`s perspective...for what it`s worth.

Respectfully, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
jahenders
Colorado Springs CO USA
Posts: 684
Joined: 2017
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 1:02:36 PM
Quote:

Now, this also played out in World War II. The Russians won the war in Europe. They did most of the dying, most of the fighting and most of the killing of German soldiers. The Normandy Invasion was insisted upon by the Americans as attacking Germany and capturing Berlin was the fastest way to end the War. By creating Western Front, the Poles, French, Brits, and Americans prevented the Russians from liberating all of Occupied Europe and installing a Communist government in the remnants of Occupied Europe.


I would disagree with the assessment that the "Russians won the war in Europe."

Certainly, the Russians DID suffer the most casualties and inflict huge casualties on the Germans.
- It's also worth noting that some portion of the Russian casualties were caused because they had purged their officer corps, they used prison battalions, and their secret police were quite active in capturing/killing their own people (including troops in the field)
However, it's a bit much to say they won and it would certainly be ridiculous to suggest that they won almost single-handed.

Several reasons for this:
- First, Russia would quite possibly have fallen in 1941 or shortly thereafter. In the battles outside Moscow, in some cases 1/3 of the tanks were British provided, as well as a lot of the ammo and fuel.
-- The US then provided huge volumes of lend lease to keep the Russians afloat -- locomotives, trains, fuel, planes, and ammo
-- As the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov said Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war: "On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources"

- Second, the British (and later US) fighting in Africa tied up huge numbers of German troops and material

- Third, the Anglo-British bombing against Germany did immense damage to German production, transportation, and fuel supplies. This reduced the number of German troops, planes, and tanks that the Russians faced at every turn from 1942 on.
-- Further, German attempts to reduce the damage of the bombing campaigns led to something like a million men being tied down in AAA batteries, fire brigades, repair teams, and fighter squadrons.

Finally, the Anglo-British D-Day invasion (and threat thereof) forced the Germans to tied down troops, tanks, and planes that would otherwise be facing the Russian advance

So, yes, the Russians paid the most dearly in terms of blood, but they couldn't have done it without British and American contributions. Each country paid in its own way and none could have done it alone.

Jim
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 1:26:09 PM
Morris,

Please don’t think for a moment that I seek to downplay or disparage US contribution to victory in both world wars. I’d be mortified if that’s how my comments were interpreted.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 1:42:49 PM
A few things Jim, just to put things in perspective.

1. The Russians purged their officer Corps before the 2nd World War.

2. That is a mis-conception that Russia would fall in 1941. Though surprised, the Russians had moved their factories beyond the Ural Mountains, beyond the reach of the Germans. The Germans were not aware of this.

3.An incredible eight out of 10 German war casualties occurred on the Eastern Front.

4. Even German chancellor Angela Merkel said in 2015 “the Red Army played the decisive role in liberating Germany.”

5. For this, the Soviet Union paid dearly: An estimated ten million military dead, more than every other Allied nation combined.

6. On average, every 24 days the Soviet Union saw enough men killed to equal the entire wartime losses of the United Kingdom (383,700)

7.Germany's largest defeats happened in the East: in the same month as D-Day, part of an operation caused about 100k German casualties, the Soviets launched Operation Bagration, which caused about 800k German casualties.

8. 85% of AXIS resources, money, and manpower was used up in the Russian theatre of war.

9. 1942 the Soviet Union made 11,000 to 2,000 tanks; the T-34 series, the KV series, not just a lot of tanks but a lot of very good tanks.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 1:48:13 PM
Quote:
It had to do with man-power. By that time in the war, all the combatants were pretty well spent, and on the Western Front, all the fighting had resulted in a stalemate as we are both aware. Those European countries had already mobilized, and there was no new source of manpower available to aid either the Central Powers or the Allies.

Once the US entered the war, the calculus changed. The Germans realized this and felt that if they could mount one more offensive to force GB and France to surrender, they woujld win the war. That is why Lenin was allowed to go from Switzerland to Imperial Russia a. Once the Russians had surrendered, those German troops were sent West.

You are aware of that lost German offensive that eventually just ran out of gas.

Yes, I agree that the US troops had to undergo more training. But once they entered the battlefield, they were the determining factor.

The entry of the United States was the turning point of the war, because it made the eventual defeat of Germany possible. It had been foreseen in 1916 that if the United States went to war, the Allies' military effort against Germany would be upheld by U.S. supplies and by enormous extensions of credit.

Realize that GB and France had suffered tremendous losses since 1914. They were pretty well spent by 1918. And in that last 100 days offensive, the Americans suffered tremendous casualties, so much so that those losses were one of the reasons the US turned isolationist during the intervening years between the war.

Now, this also played out in World War II. The Russians won the war in Europe. They did most of the dying, most of the fighting and most of the killing of German soldiers. The Normandy Invasion was insisted upon by the Americans as attacking Germany and capturing Berlin was the fastest way to end the War. By creating Western Front, the Poles, French, Brits, and Americans prevented the Russians from liberating all of Occupied Europe and installing a Communist government in the remnants of Occupied Europe.



Please compare US casualties in the 100 days to those of the British, Australians and Canadians. I say compare the number of battles won, compare the distance of advance, compare the number of prisoners taken and if you like, compare the number of casualties taken.

You have acknowledged that the AEF participated in only one battle in which it took the lead and had assistance from the French. So please explain this sentence, "But once they entered the battlefield, they were the determining factor. ". BTW is it your own writing or lifted from the Geoffrey Wawro article in Time magazine that you posted verbatim.

You have quoted someone twice to say that the French and British armies were spent. Were these your words or Wawro's again. If the British and French were spent how did they manage to destroy or put to flight so many German divisions?

BTW, the losses taken by the AEF were unfortunate and it had to do with inexperience and also questionable tactics at times. The stubborn belief that the American rifleman and his bayonet would overcome all was incorrect in this war. It took some time before the AEF realized that the tactics used by the French and British were the route to victory while minimizing loss.

Morris made some comment that the Americans want to be appreciated for what they did. Fair enough but I cannot sit by while you NY make preposterous claims as to the readiness of the British and Commonwealth troops to fight. I have given credit to the AEF for what it was able to do in the short time that it was in combat.

But the AEF did not win this war. It made a contribution and like it or not, that contribution was not as significant as the contributions made by the French, British and the Dominions. It would have been had the war continued into 1919. But it was the British Empire and the Belgians who chased Germany back home in the final 100 days.

I don't know whether you are baiting or not right now but these last few posts have been shameful.

Morris has asked for gratitude for what the US had done in WW1. The allies who fought this war for four years and defeated the enemy ask for respect not hubris and flag waving.




NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 2:05:33 PM
What I have said all along George, the US troops proved to be the deciding factor in defeating the Germans.

The French had mutinied and the Brits were close to it, their officers feared.

Read the books I have suggested and then we can chat!
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 2:52:48 PM
Quote:
What I have said all along George, the US troops proved to be the deciding factor in defeating the Germans.

The French had mutinied and the Brits were close to it, their officers feared.

Read the books I have suggested and then we can chat!



Yes, you keep repeating yourself but you have to be specific. At what time in the war was the AEF the deciding factor? The largest operation by the AEF during the 100 days, was Meuse-Argonne in September of 1918.

One million men participated as part of this French led initiative and it was the French who took the objective. The AEF lost a lot of men and had many wounded. It was a bitter taste of what the other allies had experienced for three plus years. The men who fought there and died there deserve to be honoured. And I think that it is fair to say that lack of experience and questionable tactics in some phases of the operation led to too many casualties.

But was it the most critical battle of the final 100 days? Was Meuse-Argonne fought on the main axis of advance?

This is a map of the territory taken by the different allied armies.

yellow- Belgium
pink- Britain
blue- France
green- US

Does this put the relative contributions into perspective a little?


NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 3:07:46 PM
Read the books that I have suggested and we can chat.

That map does not show the troop concentrations at all.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 3:34:16 PM
Quote:
Read the books that I have suggested and we can chat.

That map does not show the troop concentrations at all.



No, No. That's not how it works. You do this too much. You are either too lazy to express yourself or you really do not know what to say.

For you to suggest that you won't talk unless everyone reads the books that you have read is a deflection.

So tell me in which battles and at what time period that the AEF was the most important group in the fight.

BTW the map doesn't show how many troops are involved but it does show the placement of armies. During the final 100 days the AEF was fighting in bottom right corner of a front that extended to the English channel. Are you suggesting that the British weren't fighting against anyone at all?

I doubt that there are many on this forum who will agree that the US won this war but I invite you to prove it but with detailed arguments going battle to battle. No more generalized statements without substantiation.

example: You can't quote one of your google sources that says that the British were spent and then not answer how they were able to advance so far and so fast beginning on Aug. 8, 1918.

Otherwise you're just blowing smoke up everyone's arse which I suspect is your only reason to be here.

EDIT: Take a look at the Battle of 2nd Marne. July 15, 1918. It was a pivotal battle in the war and 85,000 AEF troops (US 43nd div), under French command fought there. The British provided a corps. US troops helped greatly but they were not the dominant force here. It was an important battle and a last try to deflect attention away from Flanders. Ludendorff hoped that the Marne diversion would allow him to attack in Flanders. He failed at the Marne.
Eventually the 24 divisions of the French army assisted by British and American and Italian troops counter attacked.

Still US forces held an important part of the line and they along with French Moroccan troops did advance and did take prisoners. The victory was in conjunction with allies.

You are trying to sell some narrative that without the AEF no victory was possible. And certainly the arrival of the AEF gave the French and British confidence but that did not mean that the war was over for them. Far from it as they were called upon to win it.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 4:00:27 PM
The Americans saved Britain and France in the spring and summer, and destroyed the German Army in the fall.

How about helped to destroy the German Army ?

US troops proved to be the deciding factor in the defeat of the Germans.

How about a deciding factor ?

Is that a “ nice try “ ?

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 4:07:02 PM
But in an important sense the Americans did win the war. By 1918 the Allied armies were tired and depleted; the Germans could reasonably have hoped for a negotiated peace that would give them parts of France and Belgium. The unexpected arrival of two million fresh, eager American soldiers stunned the Kaiser’s generals—they realized they could never prevail. No matter how many Americans they killed, there would always be millions more. An armistice on the Allies’ terms was their only option. The United States could claim much credit for ending the war. But its victory took place as much in the minds of the German generals as on the battlefield.

What I am saying is that the presence of the Americans doomed the Germans.

Nice try though.
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 4:42:15 PM
This has gone on long enough. Stop feeding the troll.

Best wishes,

Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
jahenders
Colorado Springs CO USA
Posts: 684
Joined: 2017
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 5:13:19 PM
Quote:
A few things Jim, just to put things in perspective.
1. The Russians purged their officer Corps before the 2nd World War.
2. That is a mis-conception that Russia would fall in 1941. Though surprised, the Russians had moved their factories beyond the Ural Mountains, beyond the reach of the Germans. The Germans were not aware of this.
3.An incredible eight out of 10 German war casualties occurred on the Eastern Front.
4. Even German chancellor Angela Merkel said in 2015 “the Red Army played the decisive role in liberating Germany.”
5. For this, the Soviet Union paid dearly: An estimated ten million military dead, more than every other Allied nation combined.
6. On average, every 24 days the Soviet Union saw enough men killed to equal the entire wartime losses of the United Kingdom (383,700)
7.Germany's largest defeats happened in the East: in the same month as D-Day, part of an operation caused about 100k German casualties, the Soviets launched Operation Bagration, which caused about 800k German casualties.
8. 85% of AXIS resources, money, and manpower was used up in the Russian theatre of war.
9. 1942 the Soviet Union made 11,000 to 2,000 tanks; the T-34 series, the KV series, not just a lot of tanks but a lot of very good tanks.


Don't dispute most of that data

1. Yes, I mentioned this. This was a self-inflicted wound that contributed to their high casualties, along with ill-equipped prisoner units, and their secret police killing their own people
2. Right, the factories might not have been seized, but the battles outside Moscow came pretty close. If Moscow had fallen, it would have had a huge impact, both morale-wise and by severing a lot of their rail network
5. Certainly, largely because much of that fighting was on their own land, with some portion of those losses impacted by their own decisions
9. True, by the end of the war they were producing a lot, but again we (and the brits) were substantially impacting how much the Germans could produce and get to either front

Keep in mind that our strategic bombing had such an impact that Stalin begged us and the Brits to bomb Dresden because it was a substantial German transportation hub.

Jim
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 5:19:32 PM
I run into a few who argue against the Brits and Americans starting a 2nd front, and they say the Russians should have done all the fighting.

I counter by telling them, that the Soviets would have installed puppet goverments in all countries they liberated, right up to France.


Here in the states, we have a US senator who claims that the Americans defeated Fascism and Communism in WW II.
Tom Barrett
Turbotville PA USA
Posts: 119
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 5:20:02 PM
Colin,
Amen brother. Amen!

Best Regards,
Tom
----------------------------------
"To a pilot , the most important thing in the world is flight. To share it is without price." Richard Bach
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 6:47:26 PM
What many forget about WW I, the Germans would not have made those offensives in 1918 if the Americans hadn't entered the war. Basically because of the Americans, the British could risk their last army and the French could take the offensive with an army that was gun-shy.
This is basically from the Introduction of Sons of Freedom.



I'll be reviewing this book later this year.
Wazza
Sydney  Australia
Posts: 814
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 10:03:17 PM
NYGiant a lot of your data sounds like it comes from pro American historians like Geoffrey Wawro who from some of his work I have seen and read comes across anti British as well.
Sad that he teaches this one eyed view as well.

Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/27/2022 11:40:49 PM
Colin, Tom, I agree wholeheartedly! This is increasingly tiresome.

Cheers
Brian G

----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 12:01:21 AM
On this day in 1978, Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Israels Menachem Begin were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I’ve always felt that this was one of the more understated Nobels, and that President Carter deserved more recognition for the part he played in bringing about the Camp David Accords, which lead to a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.

I relied on Britannica’s “This Day in History” for the reminder, I will admit. And I delighted in the photo of the three men signing a document that the website uses. The desk appears too small for the three of them – I can almost hear Menachem telling Jimmy to wriggle his ass to the right just a bit! It almost looks as if Menachem and Jimmy are smiling!
[Read More]

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 3:13:32 AM
Quote:
What many forget about WW I, the Germans would not have made those offensives in 1918 if the Americans hadn't entered the war. Basically because of the Americans, the British could risk their last army and the French could take the offensive with an army that was gun-shy.
This is basically from the Introduction of Sons of Freedom.



I'll be reviewing this book later this year.


Between July and November 1918, the French suffered 400 000 casualties - at least- on the Western Front. Being a “ gun- shy” poilus was a rather dangerous experience.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Page 32 of 115 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31    32    33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115 )

© 2024 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC