Russia to mark 70 years since Battle of Stalingrad

[Gerald]

Up to a million soldiers died in the six months of intense warfare

Russian President Vladimir Putin will lead tributes to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of the Battle of Stalingrad.

The city of Stalingrad, which was renamed Volgograd in 1961, will regain its wartime name for the event, following a council decision.

Around one million people are thought to have died in the battle, as Soviet troops defeated the Germans.

It is considered one of the major turning points of World War II.

The vast death toll is not the only reason why the battle has huge significance in Russia, the BBC's Moscow correspondent Daniel Sandford reports.

It is seen as the moment when the tide was turned against the Nazis.

From Stalingrad some Soviet soldiers fought all the way to Berlin, he adds.

The defeat threw Hitler's offensive in the Soviet Union into disarray.

The victory in World War II is one of the things that unites all Russians, our correspondent adds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21303886


Note: 2 February 2013 Last updated at 03:13 GMT

[Cybermat47]

Commemorating 70 years since the definition of hell became one word.

[Stealhead]

In my opinion Leningrad or rather the 872 day long siege of Leningrad is a better one definition of Hell it does not get the attention that Stalingrad does which is a shame there was much more to the
war on the Eastern Front than just Stalingrad.

People in Leningrad truly suffered. Leningraders had to work every single day helping defend the city but they had to do this while starving to death so each day when people went out to do their job several of thier co-workers simply dropped dead and they left the body to sit because another might expire just digging the grave that's hell.In Stalingrad people dealt with this for a few months while in Leningrad they had to suffer for 2 years, 4 months, 2 weeks and 5 days.

[BossMark]

One of WW2 greatest and bloodiest battles.

[kranz]

Leningraders had to work every single day helping defend the city but they had to do this while starving to death so each day
while trains loaded with food stood on sidings in the suburbs of the city.

[Skybird]

And the rennaissance of Stalin cult is blossoming on. Archconservative veteran orgainstions managed to push through a bill at court that renames the city Stalingrad for several days per year. Throughout Russia, report Russian newspaper, busses with Stalin portraits are to be seen. A critical discussion abo9tu the fact that stalin belongs amongst the greatets m,ass murderers and war criminals of all time, does not take place.

Since many years, Stalin is becoming en vogue again. There are musicals about him, school books gloss over his murderous acting and glorify him, he is very popular with many young ones.

Hm.

These days I read a report that the Russian airforce is reintroducing the red star on its planes.

Hm.

And of Putin one can safely say that he has completely abandoned his 15+ years ago attempts to bring Russia closer to Europe, and now has plotted a determined course back into the past.

Remembrance all this is not. It is abuse. It is transfiguration.

[Oberon]

Putin tried to get closer to Europe, Europe told Putin where he could stick it. Russia was great in the past, is it any wonder that Russians want to return to it? Of course, the brutality of Stalins rule is forgotten by many, who just remember the times when the word 'Russia' meant more than drunken brawlers and mafia but that's how it goes in most countries, Japan is another good example of this.

Anyway, that's off topic.

What is on topic is the fact that Stalingrad was one of the big turning points of World War II, along with Midway, where the Axis suffered major defeats. From 1943 it was pretty much all over for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, they both would put up major battles, and claim victories, but the tide had turned.

[Jimbuna]

The Sixth Army could well have been saved had pig headed Hitler allowed a tactical withdrawal.

[August]

The Sixth Army could well have been saved had pig headed Hitler allowed a tactical withdrawal.

It would have just only slightly prolonged the inevitable though. The German wave had crested and I don't think another couple hundred thousand troops, assuming they all got out of the trap, was going to make much difference.

[Jimbuna]

It would have just only slightly prolonged the inevitable though. The German wave had crested and I don't think another couple hundred thousand troops, assuming they all got out of the trap, was going to make much difference.

True that...nor did it help relying on the Italians and Rumanians to cover your flanks.

[Troublous_Haze]

Battle for Stalingrad aftermath

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI0yKMO6J9Y

[Troublous_Haze]

The Sixth Army could well have been saved had pig headed Hitler allowed a tactical withdrawal.

it's too easy to judge historical decissions when you already know the whole picture. In early years of war Hitlers war tactics prooved to be successfull, when even greatest generals were often unsure about the success. Hitler refused the retreat of sixth army just because he couldn't believe his Blitzkrieg has been halted.

[Jimbuna]

Little coverage of this momentous date at all in our media, except a short report on the BBC the other night. All Geman military activity had petered out completely by Feb 2nd. From the German 6th Army- same guys seen marching in triumph through Paris in 1940 newsreels- of about 91,000 POWs captured, only 5-6000 ever made it back to Germany after 7-12 years in Soviet prison camps. Around 1.7-2 million Axis and Soviet casualties in total over the 6 months of the battle.

[Troublous_Haze]

Little coverage of this momentous date at all in our media, except a short report on the BBC the other night. All Geman military activity had petered out completely by Feb 2nd. From the German 6th Army- same guys seen marching in triumph through Paris in 1940 newsreels- of about 91,000 POWs captured, only 5-6000 ever made it back to Germany after 7-12 years in Soviet prison camps. Around 1.7-2 million Axis and Soviet casualties in total over the 6 months of the battle.

BtW German POW's were forced to rebuild Stalingrad during prison time..

[Jimbuna]

it's too easy to judge historical decissions when you already know the whole picture. In early years of war Hitlers war tactics prooved to be successfull, when even greatest generals were often unsure about the success. Hitler refused the retreat of sixth army just because he couldn't believe his Blitzkrieg has been halted.

On the contrary....in the early days Hitler took the advice of his generals and the results are there in the history books but after the attempt on his life he never fully trusted them again and took on most of the tactical and strategic decisions...the rest as you rightly say is history.

[Stealhead]

while trains loaded with food stood on sidings in the suburbs of the city.

And who gave those orders that things where like that I wonder? Perhaps Stalin:hmmm:

Leningrad was one of those things that Stalin wanted to forget about after the war because in effect they where isolated and did things on their own he feared that the figureheads involved in Leningrad would challenge his control.

The true end for the Wehrmacht was the battle of Kursk that was their last offensive in the East (which of course failed). Stalingrad was a very important battle but it really was not the turning point from the respect of total control changing hands.After the lose at Kursk or Operation Zitadelle the Wehrmacht never again was able to stop a major Soviet.(stopping being forcing it to end and mount an effect counter attack).Had Operation Zitadelle been a success for the Germans it could have had serious effects on the Soviet morale and would have allowed the Germans the chance to close up the one salient that the Soviets had on the entire Eastern Front.

I must agree with Skybird though that the real reason behind Russia in modern times putting so much emphasis on Stalingrad is to further the cult of Stalin and therefore the cult of Putin.

Another very important battle that the Soviets lost but that greatly delayed the Wehrmacht is the greater Battle for Crimea and the Battle for Sevastopol in 1942 this was a very hard fought victory for the Wehrmacht and a costly defense for the Soviet solider but it did delay the Wehrmacht by several months and pulled resources away from other parts of the Easter Front for the Wehrmacht.Had Crimea and Sevastopol fallen with ease for the Wehrmacht it might have changed the outcome of the war.

[STEED]

Pathe Gazette newsreel...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/on-this-day--germans-surrender-to-russia-s-6th-army-at-stalingrad-115630742.html#lpd3hUb


David M Glantz now thinks if Stalin did not order that summer attack towards Kharkov the Russian's could have withdrawn and stopped the Germans outside Stalingrad. :hmmm:

[Raptor1]

it's too easy to judge historical decissions when you already know the whole picture. In early years of war Hitlers war tactics prooved to be successfull, when even greatest generals were often unsure about the success. Hitler refused the retreat of sixth army just because he couldn't believe his Blitzkrieg has been halted.

At no point did Hitler's own tactics prove to be successful in the early years of the war. Hitler did not invent the doctrine, tactics or strategies that the German army used in the campaigns in Poland and France, nor did he personally plan any of those campaigns. In fact, the breakout from Sedan which caused the collapse of the French army during the Battle of France happened because Guderian and other commanders disobeyed his orders to halt.

Hitler's meddling in the the German army's operations during Case Blue directly contributed to the disaster Stalingrad became, and his mistakes were recognizable at the time. The brief diversion of the Fourth Panzer Army and most of the Sixth Army's armoured strength to the south in July, ordered personally by Hitler in direct opposition to the offensive's plan, which served only to slow the advance enough to give the Red Army enough time to prepare the defences of Stalingrad and bog down the German army in even more logistical problems is a good example, as is his refusal to give Paulus permission to break out of the pocket during Operation Winter Storm, against advice from Manstein, which arguably doomed that operation from the start.

[Troublous_Haze]

On the contrary....in the early days Hitler took the advice of his generals and the results are there in the history books but after the attempt on his life he never fully trusted them again and took on most of the tactical and strategic decisions...the rest as you rightly say is history.

Hitler once expressed his thoughts about his generals: "My generals should be like mad dogs wishing to fight and I should be the one to hold them back untill the right moment comes. But I see what ? Looks like I am the one who must force them to fight aganst their will"

Hitler was always in control of ww2 operations. He studied tactical maps and only discussed about offensive possibilites with his general. But the final tactical decission was from Hitler and generals had to make it happen.

Perhaps Chemberlain or Churchill always believed what general talk.
If Hitler as you say would of taken the advice from all his generals blindly for example chief of staff of German Army Franz Halder, Operation Fall Gelb would have started only in 1942. Hitler was disappointed with Halder's plan and initially reacted by deciding that the German army should attack early, ready or not, in the hope that Allied unpreparedness might bring about an easy victory.

Hitler was a great tactician from very begining, only in the later years of war he started to loose his grip on reality

[Oberon]

Hitler was a great tactician from very begining, only in the later years of war he started to loose his grip on reality

:hmmm: I will admit that he had his moments, but whether that was by design or pure luck which was exploited by some good generals, but at the same time both he and Goering had some humongous clangers which cost them dearly. Dunkirk comes to mind, however that equally could have been a diplomatic move, but suffice to say that we can both agree on Hitlers mental deterioration as the war continued.
As a politician, his tactics were quite sound, I think we can agree on that, his use of propaganda and violence to achieve power, playing off people against each other whilst he picked up the pieces, well, if he had been as stupid as some people think he wouldn't have been able to make himself Fuhrer, nor bend the German armies loyalty toward him.
However, in his viewpoint towards the world, he was sorely deluded.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^

Apparently his personal Doctor kept giving him more pills as the war progressed. The higher the dosage, the more defeats for the Germans.

[Jimbuna]

A rather pointless debate IMHO :88)

[Stealhead]

A rather pointless debate IMHO :88)

Indeed.I have never been a fan of speculating what if when it comes to history.It is far more interesting to look at how wars/battles actually panned out people seem to forget that a war is never a sure thing.

That is why I mentioned the Battle for Sevastopol and Crimea this battle was much harder than the Axis had planned for and as a result units that would have
been in support of the 6th Army where diverted to the Crimea and that had a direct effect on the Battle for Stalingrad.The units diverted to the Crimea would have been covering the flanks of
the 6th Army instead they where hundreds of miles away.

[STEED]

Hitler was a great tactician from very begining, only in the later years of war he started to loose his grip on reality

What! He gambled on the fact Germany had to win the war by the end of 1942 knowing full well the Allies would be ready to take him on by then. Germany failed to go to full war time production until 1943 and by then it was too late.

Hitler had the gift of the gab and knew how to use it even when going down he could talk to his Generals to change their minds, granted it wore off them when they returned to their command posts. Reality defeated dreams.

[Oberon]

Germany failed to go to full war time production until 1943 and by then it was too late.

That was a partially political move, Hitler didn't want the civilian population to feel the affects of war in the domestic market until as late as possible. He wanted the shops to continue to sell their wares and people to work in normal pastimes. This was probably from experience from the First World War where the later stages of the war saw Germans virtually starving as the Allied blockade bit hard. So, keep the people happy and well fed, keep them obedient with the sharp stick, and the propaganda machine feeds them good news all the time and they stay unquestioning, and those that do question are removed from the equation to stop it spreading.

[STEED]

Goering should have been sacked after his failed to supply the the troops trapped in Stalingrad and yet he went on to fail again this time in Tunisia.

Stalingrad: An Examination of Hitler's Decision to Airlift
http://www.joelhayward.org/stalingradairlift.htm

PDF
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj97/spr97/hayward.pdf

[Troublous_Haze]

What! He gambled on the fact Germany had to win the war by the end of 1942 knowing full well the Allies would be ready to take him on by then. Germany failed to go to full war time production until 1943 and by then it was too late.

I already mentioned that is too easy to judge about facts when you see the whole picture.

When Japan declared war to USA, Hitler didn't want to declare war to US, but I bet he did it just for solidarity to Japan. Germany and Japan before that signed a pact that if any of the nation would be attacked by USA or other country, the second would also declare war on the agressor. But History turned to be different. Japan itslef turned to be the agressor (because it was smartly provoked) so Germany had a full right to stay away from declaring the war, but for some reason it did not happened. That was unexpected to Hitler that Japan declare war on USA, everyone now knows that it was a fail, on the other hand Roosvelt also was a nasty old fart too.
For example what does it meant that american destroyer would escort british convoys ? I think it was the passive way of war declaration. But Roosvelt was so much into it not to show America as an agressor that he did everything, that AXIS powers would look like a bad guys to his own nation for one reason - to justify the USA engagement to WW2.

So from the times that Hitler spent in prison during which he wrote Mein Kampf passed to much time. Perhaps it was in his plans to end the war in 1942, but God always laughs at ppl who makes plans right ?

On the other hand those who just wish to marginalize Hitlers role as Leader of Germany before/during WW2 will always find something to hook on.

[STEED]

The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4YMNg_viw

Three part documentary based on Laurence Rees book.

Link to the book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Charisma-Adolf-Hitler-Millions/dp/0091917638/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359895415&sr=1-1

[Troublous_Haze]

If this is another documentry about Hitlers biography so I already know it by heart.

Watching anyway.

Edited: too lazy to watch all three parts, about something that is well known to me.

if there is something you think you found me unaware off please post a time line of the video and the part of this documentry.

[Takeda Shingen]

A rather pointless debate IMHO :88)

Yeah, but if we didn't have pointless debates there'd be something like two threads on this forum. I tried once to find an argumentative thread that was not pointless. I failed.

[Troublous_Haze]

The Sixth Army could well have been saved had pig headed Hitler allowed a tactical withdrawal.

Perhaps this post is also pointless.. but whatever, some ppl just need pointless discussions as daily meal I guess..

[Jimbuna]

Yeah, but if we didn't have pointless debates there'd be something like two threads on this forum. I tried once to find an argumentative thread that was not pointless. I failed.

No surprises there then :03:

[Jimbuna]

I doubt Paulus ever forgave Hitler for sacrificing his men because he soon became an outspoken critic of the Nazi regime:


Although he at first refused to collaborate with the Soviets, after the attempted assassination of Hitler on 20 July 1944, Paulus became a vocal critic of the Nazi regime while in Soviet captivity, joining the Russian-sponsored National Committee for a Free Germany and appealing to Germans to surrender. He later acted as a witness for the prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials. He was allowed to relocate to the German Democratic Republic in 1953, two years before the repatriation of the remaining German POWs (mostly other Stalingrad veterans) who had been designated war criminals by the Soviets.
During the Nuremberg Trials, Paulus was asked about the Stalingrad prisoners by a journalist. Paulus told the journalist to tell the wives and mothers that their husbands and sons were well. Of the 91,000 German prisoners taken at Stalingrad, half had died on the march to Siberian prison camps, and nearly as many died in captivity; only about 6,000 returned home.
From 1953 to 1956, he lived in Dresden, East Germany, where he worked as the civilian chief of the East German Military History Research Institute and not, as often wrongly described, as an inspector of police. In late 1956, he developed motor neurone disease and was eventually left paralyzed. He died in Dresden on 1 February 1957, exactly 14 years after he surrendered at Stalingrad. His body was brought for burial in Baden next to that of his wife, who had died in 1949, not having seen her husband since his departure for the Eastern front in the summer of 1942.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Paulus

[Oberon]

One thing that also has to be considered is that Hitler didn't fight at the front, not in the Second World War anyway, he had few ideas of what was going on other than what was filtered through to him, and he had quite the reputation of a temper so it was generally considered a bad idea to bring bad news to him. Now, to a person isolated in an ivory tower, hearing only filtered news from generals who don't want to bring bad news, or push bad news in as the minor part to the overbearing good news...basically, when you're surrounded by yes men, then you lose your grip on the reality of the situation. Thus, the longer the war progresses, the less of a grip on the reality of the battlefield he had, and thus his more direct intervention in battlefield plans became more of a hindrance than a help.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Troublous_Haze http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2003329#post2003329)
Hitler was a great tactician from very begining, only in the later years of war he started to loose his grip on reality
No.. he was not.
He exploited the unwillingness and state of uncertainty of the allies -this can be given to his credit.
His real skills started to show as soon as the western powers and Russians had started fighting back.
With his aggressive , sometimes chaotic style and blind faith in superiority of German army he gained some short time but unsustainable goals and also defeats early on.
Very often against the better judgement of his generals.

He wasn't stupid idiot but lived in his own fantasy just like many leaders from the past and present.
The very early success gave him enough credit and fan-boys base to act foolishly till it was too late.

[Troublous_Haze]

I doubt Paulus ever forgave Hitler for sacrificing his men because he soon became an outspoken critic of the Nazi regime:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Paulus

For Fieldmarshal Paulus there was no other option just to critic nazi regime to save his own life in Russian captivity.

[Troublous_Haze]

No.. he was not.
He exploited the unwillingness and state of uncertainty of the allies -this can be given to his credit.
His real skills started to show as soon as the western powers and Russians had started fighting back.
With his aggressive , sometimes chaotic style and blind faith in superiority of German army he gained some short time but unsustainable goals and also defeats early on.
Very often against the better judgement of his generals.

He wasn't stupid idiot but lived in his own fantasy just like many leaders from the past and present.
The very early success gave him enough credit and fan-boys base to act foolishly till it was too late.

With all respect to your post, it doesn't prove my quoted phrase is wrong..

[Troublous_Haze]

One thing that also has to be considered is that Hitler didn't fight at the front, not in the Second World War anyway, he had few ideas of what was going on other than what was filtered through to him, and he had quite the reputation of a temper so it was generally considered a bad idea to bring bad news to him. Now, to a person isolated in an ivory tower, hearing only filtered news from generals who don't want to bring bad news, or push bad news in as the minor part to the overbearing good news...basically, when you're surrounded by yes men, then you lose your grip on the reality of the situation. Thus, the longer the war progresses, the less of a grip on the reality of the battlefield he had, and thus his more direct intervention in battlefield plans became more of a hindrance than a help.

Hitler did fought on the first world war. It does not change anything if he did not in the second ww.
Not to bring bad news to Hitler was a propaganda ministers J. Goebels part of duty. At Stalins regime it was very fimilar when high command officers past this event from one to another to report Stalin about bad news, for example L. Beriya never did this in his own carrer, he always past to bring up bad news for somebody else but not himself as he believed it could frustrate Stalin and somehow impact the safety of Beriya himself.. My next question should be: So what ?

[STEED]

If Paulus was so anti Nazi he would have been broadcasting from Moscow radio well before 1944. Paulus was blinkered in having faith in Hitler saving him and his army, the only thing he got right was not to blow his brains out when he became a Field Marshal which pissed Hitler off. From the Russian point of view to capture one of the planners of Barbarossa must have made them smile.

[Troublous_Haze]

If Paulus was so anti Nazi he would have been broadcasting from Moscow radio well before 1944. Paulus was blinkered in having faith in Hitler saving him and his army, the only thing he got right was not to blow his brains out when he became a Field Marshal which pissed Hitler off. From the Russian point of view to capture one of the planners of Barbarossa must have made them smile.

He held himself in the middle of golden circle to survive, when he realized the Hitler is pushing him to death, he surrendered to russians hoping that the higher the rank was the higher the chance was to survive. He did not cared bout ordinary soldiers at that moment.

In short Paulus was a coward of his own kind, even bigger then the Captain of the pocket battleship of Graff Spee at the Montevideo was. It's something that is related amongst them. But not the thing I would have gave them a medal for.

[Troublous_Haze]

If there were japaneese soldiers at Stalingrad instead of Italians and Romanians to cover flanks I believe it would have been different outcome of the Stalingrad battle. But it's again from the category "what if" that I don't like to escalate.

[Raptor1]

If there were japaneese soldiers at Stalingrad instead of Italians and Romanians to cover flanks I believe it would have been different outcome of the Stalingrad battle. But it's again from the category "what if" that I don't like to escalate.

Because the Imperial Japanese Army has always proven to be so highly capable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol) of fighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Imphal) a land campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Meiktila_and_Mandalay) against a properly equipped enemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria), right?

[Troublous_Haze]

Because the Imperial Japanese Army has always proven to be so highly capable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol) of fighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Imphal) a land campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Meiktila_and_Mandalay) against a properly equipped enemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria), right?

Correct. I sometimes let myself imagine from a common "what if" category if Japan was located in the location of Italy and Italy was located to where is now Japan Axis would be much stronger power as one that Hitler could rely on Berlin - Tokyo instead of Berlin - Roma.

[Jimbuna]

Because the Imperial Japanese Army has always proven to be so highly capable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol) of fighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Imphal) a land campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Meiktila_and_Mandalay) against a properly equipped enemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria), right?

Nice piece of research...I doubt they'd be thrilled with the Russian winter either :03:

[Troublous_Haze]

Nice piece of research...I doubt they'd be thrilled with the Russian winter either :03:

Hey Jimbuna if your're so much into the positive side of the "correct" world order, what do you think of Chemberlains decission not declared war to USSR when she occupied Poland together with Germany in the Septmeber of 17 ? :)

[Jimbuna]

I find it difficult to comprehend such a foolish individual as being an Englishman.

On the other hand a great wartime leader of the UK (not chamberpot) was guilty of caving in to the wishes of Stalin at the cessation of WWII hostilities.

Any idea what that was?

[Troublous_Haze]

I find it difficult to comprehend such a foolish individual as being an Englishman.

On the other hand a great wartime leader of the UK (not chamberpot) was guilty of caving in to the wishes of Stalin at the cessation of WWII hostilities.

Any idea what that was?

The idea was that UK alone or together with France would have never won a battle against Germany and USSR if those united gainst Allies. UK never had a powerfull land army but she had a powerfull naval force, despite that, UK realized it could not last long without support from western nations such as Canada or USA. Chemberlain knew it would have been a suicidal decision to make war with Germany and USSR at once without USA support, so he pretended to go blind that Poland is attacked from Russia together with Germany. Only Churchill later dared to aproove that the Hitlers and Stalins regime is very familiar before 1941 06 22. When after the british got themselves a first Allies - Russians.

[Jimbuna]

I seem to recall we (the commonwealth included) stood almost alone for somewhere in the region of two years.

England declared a state of war with Germany on September 3rd and Canada shortly thereafter on 10th.

While the response to war was initially intended to be limited, resources were mobilized quickly. The Convoy HX-1 departed Halifax just six days after the nation declared war, escorted by HMCS St. Laurent and HMCS Saguenay. The 1st Canadian Infantry Division arrived in Britain on January 1, 1940.By June 13, 1940, the 1st Battalion of The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment was deployed to France in an attempt to secure the southern flank of the British Expeditionary Force in Belgium.

[Troublous_Haze]

I seem to recall we (the commonwealth included) stood almost alone for somewhere in the region of two years.

England declared a state of war with Germany on September 3rd and Canada shortly thereafter on 10th.

Agreed, Canada declared support 7 days latter after Great Britain declared war to Germany, but Canada had no escort ships to cover the cargo ships and this was the first flaw:) By the time nor UK or Canada realized to what threat they are up against in Atlantic.

I bow my head against RAF who actually did all that was needed to escape a land invasion of Germans by covering its air space during Battle of Britain. This was also a key factor on Hitlers decission to change the priorities of the war again.

[Jimbuna]

Agreed, Canada declared support 7 days latter after Great Britain declared war to Germany, but Canada had no escort ships to cover the cargo ships and this was the first flaw:) By the time nor UK or Canada realized to what threat they are up against in Atlantic.

I bow my head against RAF who actually did all that was needed to escape a land invasion of Germans by covering its air space during Battle of Britain. This was also a key factor on Hitlers decission to change the priorities of the war again.

Please don't forget the exploits and achievements of the 'senior service'...the Channel was and always was their domain :)

Most of the German units that left port failed to return...Graf Spee, Bismarck and Narvik destroyers immediately spring to mind.

Still awaiting a response to #46

[Troublous_Haze]

Please don't forget the exploits and achievements of the 'senior service'...the Channel was and always was their domain :)

Most of the German units that left port failed to return...Graf Spee, Bismarck and Narvik destroyers immediately spring to mind.

Still awaiting a response to #46

The channel that I believe was breached by Gneisenau and Shnarchorst in 1942 from Brest to Wilhelsmhaven, was crossed with minority of british resistance proves that nothing could stop Germans from passing the straight of Dover at the time they did it. Somewhat a disapointment moment to royal navy wasn't it ? :)

Braking through the Channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTDSxR3AG6o

[Jimbuna]

The channel that I believe was breached by Gneisenau and Shnarchorst in 1942 from Brest to Wilhelsmhaven, was crossed with minority of british resistance proves that nothing could stop Germans from passing the straight of Dover at the time they did it. Somewhat a disapointment to royal navy wasn't it ? :)

Not breached...more like sprinted through with a huge slice of good fortune due to the absence of the RN in the area at the time....not that they entered the channel to actually do any fighting...more like running for cover to a safer haven.

Wondering what happened to those naval units such as the Gneisenau and the Scharnhorst....best not mention Tirpitz I suppose.

Still no answer to #46 :hmm2:

[Oberon]

The channel that I believe was breached by Gneisenau and Shnarchorst in 1942 from Brest to Wilhelsmhaven, was crossed with minority of british resistance proves that nothing could stop Germans from passing the straight of Dover at the time they did it. Somewhat a disapointment to royal navy wasn't it ? :)

Braking through the Channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTDSxR3AG6o

One breakout in six years does not constitute naval control. Admittedly though, kudos to the Kriegsmarine, it was a ballsy move, we were expecting them to make a break at night, not in the middle of the day. Caught completely off guard.
Several dozen uboats, and eboats were not so lucky in the channel though.

Furthermore, honestly, it was better for the Royal Navy and Britain as a whole for those two ships NOT to be in France, where they could threaten Atlantic convoys, but to be cooped up safely protecting against an imaginary invasion of Norway.

[Troublous_Haze]

One breakout in six years does not constitute naval control. Admittedly though, kudos to the Kriegsmarine, it was a ballsy move, we were expecting them to make a break at night, not in the middle of the day. Caught completely off guard.
Several dozen uboats, and eboats were not so lucky in the channel though.

Furthermore, honestly, it was better for the Royal Navy and Britain as a whole for those two ships NOT to be in France, where they could threaten Atlantic convoys, but to be cooped up safely protecting against an imaginary invasion of Norway.

Speaking about naval control you used to forget about influence of U-boats thread here mate :) Surface ships played just a secondary role in that battle ;)

[HundertzehnGustav]

The subs were a threat.
That threat was kicked in the balls by whom? surface and air.
so who is the major player in the atrantic? the DD, the PBY or the VII?

The subs were dangerous, and scary as hell.
but too few were active, and the intel was soon known.
control, in the sense of controlling who is using that space (2D or 3D) over a given timeframe.........
the subs never managed to do that.

so the subs never controlled anything. not the large areas, not the channel. Not the rivers and harbors, not the convoy routes.
because the enemy poured more and more ships on that battlefield.
The subs didnt even control their own front garden, the bay of biskay after 1942.

subs never controlled anything.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^

They were the gods of the Eastern American seaboard in 1942.

[August]

I don't think the Japanese were all that good at fighting a defensive campaign. They were masters at camouflage and good at setting up fields of interlocking fire, but their command and control structure was too centralized. Any hint of innovation or personal initiative from their junior officers and especially NCOs was severely discouraged to the point they couldn't adjust to changes in the tactical situation.

They also had a tendency to commit suicide rather than go down fighting. There are many stories of Marines finding groups of Japanese soldiers dead from self inflicted wounds although they still had the means to continue resisting. Even their Banzai charges were more about dying gloriously for the emperor than killing the emperors enemies.

[Takeda Shingen]

They also had a tendency to commit suicide rather than go down fighting. There are many stories of Marines finding groups of Japanese soldiers dead from self inflicted wounds although they still had the means to continue resisting. Even their Banzai charges were more about dying gloriously for the emperor than killing the emperors enemies.

They gave up on those Banzai Charges after Saipan. After that, it largely became a matter of fighting to the last man, like they did on Guam, Tinian, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. This attitude, which had been intstilled in the home civilian populace, is what would have made an invasion of the Home Islands so incredibly costly, and why the atomic bombs were used.

[Oberon]

Speaking about naval control you used to forget about influence of U-boats thread here mate :) Surface ships played just a secondary role in that battle ;)

In what battle?

[Jimbuna]

Not breached...more like sprinted through with a huge slice of good fortune due to the absence of the RN in the area at the time....not that they entered the channel to actually do any fighting...more like running for cover to a safer haven.

Wondering what happened to those naval units such as the Gneisenau and the Scharnhorst....best not mention Tirpitz I suppose.

Still no answer to #46 :hmm2:

Cherry picking ones responses is not a way of maintaining ones credibility.

Still awaiting an answer to#46 or are you all done maistro?

[August]

They gave up on those Banzai Charges after Saipan. After that, it largely became a matter of fighting to the last man, like they did on Guam, Tinian, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.

Don't know where you heard that but AFAIK Banzai charges were held in all of those battles you list except Okinawa. There were several at Iwo Jima including a failed attempt to recapture Suribachi.

But for every Banzai charge there were more suicides, often in groups by Japanese soldiers who still had the means to resist. Militarily that is a waste of resources.

This attitude, which had been intstilled in the home civilian populace, is what would have made an invasion of the Home Islands so incredibly costly, and why the atomic bombs were used.

I agree that it would have been incredibly costly in any case.

[Takeda Shingen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge

The last and largest Banzai attack of the war took place in the Battle of Saipan in 1944 where, at the cost of almost 4,300 dead Japanese soldiers, it almost destroyed the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the 105th U.S. Infantry who lost almost 650 men.

[Jimbuna]

Thought this topic was European theatre not Pacific :hmm2:

[Takeda Shingen]

Sorry. We'll leave you guys to your bar fight.

By the way, it's maestro.

[August]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge

It might have been the largest but it most certainly wasn't the last:

Iwo Jima Feb/Mar 1945
http://m1pencil.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/iwo-jima-banzai-charge-aftermath/

Corregidor Feb 1945
http://www.thedropzone.org/pacific/calhoun.html

[Troublous_Haze]

In what battle?

in the whole battle for Atlantic :haha:

So you say that the successfull channel dash wasn't somewhat a miserable event to Royal Navy ? :)

[Troublous_Haze]

Jimbuna, what was that about #46 ?

Failed to understand the question, sorry :)

[Jimbuna]

Jimbuna, what was that about #46 ?

Failed to understand the question, sorry :)

No problem....Churchill lost power to a Labour government straight after the war and because of the politics that evolved at the time the VE parade in 1946 was missing one important ally from the war....Free Poland.

Russia and Yugoslavia weren't their either but that was to be expected.

Many believe had Churchill still been in power at the time, he would have ignored the stance taken by Stalin and the Poles would have been in attendance.

[Oberon]

in the whole battle for Atlantic :haha:

Well, without the Uboats there wouldn't have been a Battle for the Atlantic! :har: However, one has to remember that aside from two or three peaks, once the convoy system had gotten its act together, and technology advanced enough to allow long range aircraft escort, the uboats became less and less effective. They missed their opportunities due to a lack in numbers at critical times. If Doenitz had had his three hundred uboats at the outbreak of war, then perhaps things could have been a bit different, but instead resources were pumped into making battlecruisers that had minimal impact on the war.

So you say that the successfull channel dash wasn't somewhat a miserable event to Royal Navy ? :)

Not particularly, it was war, sometimes the enemy does things you don't expect them to. In the short term it was a bit embarrassing, but in the long term it was actually good fortune, because it took them out of the Battle for the Atlantic and put them in a completely useless theatre of operations.
Even the German Naval staff called the Channel Dash a 'tactical victory but a strategic defeat'.

Out of curiosity, where are you from? :hmmm:

[August]

Not particularly, it was war, sometimes the enemy does things you don't expect them to.

Very true. The battle of the Bulge was a great example of that. The Germans achieved surprise in that battle precisely because attacking in that place at that time was such an obviously bad idea that nobody expected them to do it.