Sin Cossack debate

[Cossack]

I posted my response in the last thread now it is your turn.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Well, your last post doesnt leave much up to debate, but I can add a little to what you said...

I am aware on how both sides used non-conscripts to use for their own army. Stalin, before Rokossovsky's advance into Poland, used Radio Moscow to get the non-Communist Poles to revolt against the Nazi rule in place, essentially so the Germans would slaughter them and a Communist Pole army would rise up and "liberate" their homeland. Well, as expected, the Germans retaliated and slaughtered these Polish who dared to stand up to the Nazi regime. Here is where it gets interesting: After the Nazi's counter attacked and crushed a Russian patrol, they turned their guns on the Poles who were uprising. The only thing odd about this is the "Germans" who slaughtered the Poles were infact Russian prisioners and ex-convicts wearing German Schulstaffen uniforms led by General Bor-Komorowski...this was probably where some of the most heinous war atrocities outside of the concentration camps occured. The Russians ended up killing about half of Bor-Komorowki's, forcing him to surrender, but not before the "German" fighters could kill around 200,000 civilians.

I am not sure how this is going to be a debate unless one of us can bring up a topic that can be contested from multiple points of view.

Anyway, anyone can post in this thread as long as it isnt a post I deem to be stupid. I will delete spam and other shit that doesnt belong.

[Cossack]

Hmmm I never heard of that happening in that way. The American history books tell us that The Poles did uprise and that the Germans killed off the Poles while the Russians just sat there at the gates of Warsaw and watched. But I never heard of the Russians going in and killing the Polish Resistance. These are one of the many things history forgets to tell us. Another thing is the severley inhumane treatment of German POWs and CIVILIANS under AMERICAN and FRENCH supervision. Many Germans and POWs have died at the hand of Americans the year after the war ended. My Great Uncle was one of the survivors of the POW camps. Let me tell you of some experiences that happened there. When German civillians not in internment camps tried to throw food and rations over the fence. American guards would shoot at them. They were cramped up so much that it was impossible to lie down. When they were  thirsty in the winter time the americans sprayed a high powered water hose at them. The mass death of German dissapearences after WWII has been blamed on the Russians. Yet after the Cold War ended and the declassification of documents commenced there was a vast numerical gap. Let it be known that Russian are very accurate in their reporting especially in that time period because there is no freedome of information act and no need to sugar coat the truth on their personal archives.(not the same in their news casts). So this vast numerical gap could be attributed to suicide of Germans? No. The only conclusion is that the Americans and French killed more Germans then they are telling us. Sin I will get a transcript of my Great Uncles Memoirs(he was Waffen SS). But another source is the book "Other Losses." I forget who the author's name is. It might be hard to find the book because it has been banned in many places. I am doubtful your State Department Uncle will know much about it, because it is a very covered up and shadowy part of American history. By the way could you tell me where you got the information on the Warsaw uprising. I never heard it told like that.

[alaric]

I'd just like to say that this whole conversation has been really interesting! Thank you both for enlightening all of us to some of the finer points of history. I've always thought that deep historical and philosophical debate was one of the things missing from this BBS.

Cossack, I would be very interested in reading your Uncle Memoirs, and was the author's name was who wrote "Other Losses" James Bacque? The only thing more shameful than a country commiting such artrocities as those committed by all sides during WWII is for that country to cover up and "forget" about those parts of history. "Those who forget history are bound to repeat it..." or some other saying like that.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Bah, you misinterpreted me - or maybe you didn't. The Russian army didn't directly quash the Polish non-communist uprising, but they incited it with their radio broadcasts. I think you saw me saying that the Russian's killing General Bor-Korowski's men as them killing the rebellion. Brilliant move by the Soviets so they wouldnt have to deal with the non-Communists when their occupation force assisted the Polish Commie army after the "liberation" of Warsaw.

As for where I learned this stuff, Westpoint- History of WWII...one bitch of a class taught by one piss ass Colonel. Also a place where I learned Military tactics and whatnot...if it wasnt for a damn heart condidtion that developed recently, I would have been going to Westpoint this fall and not UCLA.

Anyway, the killing of German's was probably more on the French's hands due to DeGaulle's deep hatred for the German's...he had the balls to lead the resistance and I wouldnt be surprised if he killed a lot of them when he could. However, I wouldn't be surprised if American GI's took out their anger on the German POW's...I think if we were ruthless enough to kill the German officer corps via firing squad after the Nuremburg trials, then we were ruthless enough to kill German's when no one was looking.

[alaric]

I've done a little more research on this James Bacque fellow. Assuming that he is the one Cossack was talking about he's not all what's he's cracked up to be. I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to make sure that statements alleged during this debate have proper counter-points.


This is a link to a Review of "Other Losses" by Stephen E. Ambrose, one of the foremost Amerian Historians in the world. He basically states that Bacque was totally wrong in his book, except on a few minor points.

"... when scholars do the necessary research, they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is seriously - nay, spectacularly - flawed in its most fundamental aspects." -Ambrose

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/bacque-james/ambrose-001.html

(Don't worry it's a pretty short read)

[Cossack]

My Great Uncle Herman's memoirs is what I trust more. You also have to remeber by going up and saying that Americans commited atrocites against the Germans is totally unbeleivable to Joe Schmoo. My great uncle was an honest man and I doubt his memoirs are fabricated or BS. The only problem is that I need to get them from Germany and then translate them. And they are rather long. BTW Alaric, I was kinda quick to beleive that Other Losses speil. I still do. In my Uncle's memoirs it tells of very simmilar things. I am not sure weather Ambrose is disaggreing to Other Losses because it shows such an "anti-american" view. Either way the book, weather you beleive it or not, is a good read. Especially for all you conspiracy theorists out there. In short, I think that the Army has covered up what happened in those camps, but the fatalities are not as high as MR. Bacque says it is.Still the gaps in numbers where of Wehrmacht soldiers not milita men. BTW Assassin I did misinterpret you. That was a very shameful thing the Russians did. Of coarse in Russia they dont tell it like that. They say that artillery and logistics were not ready for an assault on Warsaw and that the Poles acted too soon. But one can see right through the Soviet Propoganda BS.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Just a note to your previous comments in the old thread about the invading of Russia.

First, Both the midgets with only one testicle made the sin of fighting a war on two fronts.  They both thought they could invade and be entrenched before winter (they didn't start their campaigns in winter, the just got held back until that little nasty surprise added it's damage).  Nappy should have finished beating down Spain and work on his Navy before turning to Russia.  Dolfy should have finished of Britin and not turned towards Russia until after.  If Britin had fallen (especially before the USA got into the war), then he would have been able to push much harder into Russia.

Second, Russia mobalized their tank production in WW2 like nobody's business.  If it hadn't been for how well the USA did it, that's what everyone would have been talking about back then.  Russian factories were pushing out tanks (and some good amount of airplanes, but they like their tanks) like mad.  It's even more significant that they did it while their boarders were being invaded (where the USA was just scared shitless after PH).

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Dolfy should have finished of Britin and not turned towards Russia until after.  If Britin had fallen (especially before the USA got into the war), then he would have been able to push much harder into Russia.

This statement is both flawed, but at the same time, semi-correct. Yes, if Britain had fallen before we entered the war, we would have been fucked about entering the war. But there was no way in hell (at the time being) that Hitler could have done more to take out the Brits. He launched a massive air campaign with his Luftwaffe (a quasi Blitzkreig without the tank pounding) and was eventually repelled by the RAF. He tried to invade twice but was repelled each time by British warships and aircraft. (Don't forget that the Brits probably had the second strongest Navy in the world at the time behind the USA).

But where your argument goes horribly wrong is that the Germans should have waited to attack the Russians. If Hitler had not launched operation Barbarossa and surprised attacked the Russians, it is likely that the Russians would have done the same thing if they sensed a German victory eminent in Britain. Before the fighting occured on the Eastern front, Hitler and Stalin had a "peace pact" (both thought it would be used to their advantage when they launched a first strike...but as we know now, Hitler threw the first sucker punch) and they both thought of each other as suckers for signing it.

[Cossack]

Stalin wanted to be an "Axis power" Many German Generals favoured it. They were thinking geopoliticlly. They would be very happy to have a "Eurasian Alliance." Soveit-German-Jappanses-Itallian Pact would hurt. Yet Hitler was to inflamaed and hated every aspect of Communism. Stalin was convinced on June 20,1941 that this geopoolitical alliance was going to happen very soon. It is also Stalin's fault that we took so many casualties. It was his dumbass execution of all military talent and the failure to recognize warning about German invasion that cost us dearly.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Yeah, I have to disagree with you Assassin.  I don't think Russia would have attacked Germany as long as it didn't look like Germany was making a move.  Stalin was a bit blinded by his own ambitions back then.  

And, timeline wise, the Germans U-Boat wolfpacks were still wreaking havoc on British shipping.  Given more time, England would have fallen.  Yes, they put up the only serious resistance that Germany had encountered until then.  But if Hitler could have taken out the Islands, then there would be the whole Atlantic between him and America.  With that kind of safety zone, he could have turned almost all his attention to Russia.  Hitler just reached too far too fast (in too many directions).  Once he was really extened in three directions (let's not forget Africa / the Med), the USA got involved.  Throwing not only man power into the mix, but a bunch of equiptment to both the Russians and the Brits to help them in their efforts.  For a while there the USA was supplying almost all of the Russian airplanes when they decided to get into the mix.  Above all else, Hitler was winning until the USA entered the fight.  Good thing for all of us that the Japs attacked us.  If the USA had waited longer (and England fallen), who knows how the war would have turned out.

[Cossack]

I dont think U.S. entrance into the war was a turning point. I think the turning points were in 1943 at Stalingrad,Midway,and El Alemein. Those three battles is when The Axis lost considerable man power and strategic positions.

[Sploosh]

Hmmm...intersting...
Cossack wrote:
My great uncle was an honest man and I doubt his memoirs are fabricated or BS.

Sin I will get a transcript of my Great Uncles Memoirs(he was Waffen SS).



...I always trust the SS!

Teehee http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/banana.gif

[Cossack]

Sploosh, he didnt vollunteer. Did you know that Preists were a favorite to be drafted into the Waffen SS? ANy how the Waffen SS were like the Marines. They were different from the concentration camp runners. They were soldiers.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Cossack, the reason I list the USA joining the war as the major turning point is because the allies were all on the defensive before that point.  Witout the USA there, both with troops, but more importantly with equiptment and supplies, would Stalingrad even have held?  Would they have been attacked again even if they did?

You are right that those battles were milestones that marked the turn (you should have mentioned Coral Sea as well), but it was really the influence of the USA's mobalization of men and equiptment that was the difference.  And I'm not blowing that horn because I'm American, but only because of the actual history.  If the US was in a war and losing, I'm absolutely sure that if Russia dove in on our side, that would make all the difference in the world as well.  So, it was as much timing and location that made the USA's joining WW2 so important.  

If the USA was in it from the start, as many wanted them to be, Japan would not have done to China what they did (which is much worse then what the Germans did to the Jews, look it up for those of you that don't believe me).  England would never have been bombed all to hell, and Russia may never have been invaded (or even come in as an Axis power instead, which would have made things very, very different).  

If the USA didn't have the barrier of two oceans, it would have made a difference.  Home defense wasn't really needed here, which made it so much easier to dedicate all the industry towards the war effort.

If the USA had never entered the war, or had waited until after England fell (think no Perl Harbor) then the Axis would probably have taken over Europe, most of Asia, half of Africa and the Middle East.  Russia would have eventually fallen, and if they then went after the USA, it probably would have fallen too, since it would then be standing alone (well, it and Canada).

This is all why I think when the USA entered the war in December of '42, that was the actual turning point.  Not just the battles that reflected it.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

December 1941 Bucc  

I side with Bucc on this issue...without American arms, supplies, and later troops, we would be saying "heil Hitler." I'll post more on this later as time permits.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Wow, what a boned headed mistake.  Ok, I suck.

[Cossack]

First Off, the Russians(we) did not really hold Stalingrad. Well we held a small beach head on the banks of the Volga but that was it. What do you think the US contributed to the Battle of Stalingrad? Men. Just flat out no and I think you would agree with me? Air Support? The Germans bombed us in that area to no avail. Supplies? Nope sorry again no supplies by the Americans. We did not use Jeeps in that battle. We used T-34 tanks and artillery and where did those come from? They came from the Urals. The Lend Lease Program did not come to much help at that time. It was a trickle of American made jeeps hardly enough to make a difference in any out come. Remeber it took the United States to mobilize and set up forces a couple months after Japan attacked them. So no, as much as you would like to beleive. America's entrance into the War was not the turning point. Most historians aggree with me when I say it was the year 1942. When the Axis Powers lost three pinnacle battles. When they went on the defensive instead of the offensive. Russia does not owe its survival to America in any respect what so ever.

[Cossack]

Here are some links and claims to my last posts about American war atrocities. This is link is a link to the memoirs of a gurad that worked at one of these camp.http://www.rense.com/general19/camps.htm I am still working on my Uncle Manuscripts. They are quite long and German is not my best language.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Cossack, no, the USA didn't send men or jeeps to Russia in time to help defend Stalingrad.  A bunch of airplanes though, yes.  Some tanks too, but not as many that early.  Planes were the main resource America was sending to Russia in the early part of the war (along with tanks before America ever joined the war).  I don't know enough about El Alemein to talk about the impact there.

You also didn't take into account the part that if America had never entered it, Coarl Sea and Midway would never have happened.  Stalingrad would have held that time, but without America pushing Hitler from the West and South, how do you know that Germany would never have started another, more successful offensive in Russia??  And while Russia and Japan didn't openly fight in WW2, who's to say that that wouldn't have changed??  If America had never been an issue, and Japan had been pressured by Germany to help, how do you know it wouldn't have happened?

Most of the experts agree that if the USA hadn't entered the war when they did, England would have fallen.  Once England fell, why do you think that Russia would be able to stand alone?