• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow...that sounds like a REALLY dangerous job.

It was, his job was to call Typhoons from the 'Cab Rank' down on to his own position more or less.
On one occasion he was actualy behind the German line after the front moved in the night. He hid under a lorry with 3 others in the dark as vehicles drove past one way then back again. By dawn the line was back where it started.
 
Probably not as guilty as I am.
Can you say Advance Squad Leader? Probably the most complex game ever designed by the mind of man. ANd I am big player of it.


I used to play that with a couple of friends of mine, but I never mastered the rules, and they always beat me. :o

I don't really have anyone to play with around here anymore; they've all moved away. Now it's only the occasional out-of-town visit or convention. :( I have a friend who's a military history nut whom I'm hoping to get into war games, but we've both been rather busy lately.
 
Last edited:
A little off topic. But that is to be expected when you get WW2 Armor freaks together......
WHy do I suspect a few other wargamers are here?

If you'd call 40k and Warhammer 'wargames', sure. But I'm getting into Flames of War as well! ;) This conversation is fascinating, by the way. Learning quite a lot.
 
If you'd call 40k and Warhammer 'wargames', sure. But I'm getting into Flames of War as well! ;) This conversation is fascinating, by the way. Learning quite a lot.

We didn't learn anything from 911Naziboy,this is much more interesting.
 
And you can get perma-banned for saying you liked the "Tiger" in "Kelly's Heroes". ;)

Haaaaaaaaaaaa yeah

On a related OT I love war films that show infantry hiding behind tanks during battles. First thing you learn, everyone shoots at the biggest thing they can see. If another tank engages the tank you are hiding behind, your life expectancy drops like a stone
 
Haaaaaaaaaaaa yeah

On a related OT I love war films that show infantry hiding behind tanks during battles. First thing you learn, everyone shoots at the biggest thing they can see. If another tank engages the tank you are hiding behind, your life expectancy drops like a stone

"Tank" is spelled "A-R-T-I-L-L-E-R-Y M-A-G-N-E-T".
 
This is nothing, try a war film forum, people will trash a film because a BF109 had the wrong style lug nuts on the engine cowling

But yeah a war gamer from way back - been playing WINSPWW2 for years

I prefer SP:WAW but I have both on my computer.
And both are FREE Downloads. One of the best freebies on the Internet.
I also really like the John Tiller Campaign Series (East Front, West Front, The Rising Sun, with a Modern Wars coming out covering Nam and the Arab Isaraeli Conficts) and the Original Combat Mission series. I don't care for the Modern CM games, though.
 
utterly irrelevant argumentation. Ddt does not like publisher, hence statements made in books in publishers portfolio can't be true. I am sure my skeptic friends here have a name for this kind of defective argumentation.



One of the plausible scenario's, indeed. I have the 'old icebreaker' on my shelve, never found time to read it. Maybe i will. Will start with the ihr articles.



So has 9/11. :d



i am not endorsing suvorov yet. We will see.

failllllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!
 
A little off topic. But that is to be expected when you get WW2 Armor freaks together......
WHy do I suspect a few other wargamers are here?


Never been an armour guy, personally. I'm more of an aircraft and ship fan—and with aircraft carriers, I get both wrapped in one! :)
 
For the preventive war thesis, you need to prove three things:
1) the USSR actually deployed its troops in an offensive fashion and prepared for attack;
2) Nazi Germany actually knew of (1);
3) knowledge of (2) was a driver in German planning.

Suvorov's thesis has been debunked. Can you cite one single primary source from which offensive deploymend would follow?

Moreover, Suvorov only claims (1). You additionally need to prove (2) and (3). Can you cite a single German intelligence report which attests (2)? And can you cite a single German document which ties that to German planning?

I have selected following quotes from this review. Mind you, this review refers to books from the nineties. An updated version have been published ca. 10 years later, now with moresupport than before.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html

In Icebreaker, Suvorov details the deployment of Soviet forces in June 1941, describing just how Stalin amassed vast numbers of troops and stores of weapons along the European frontier, not to defend the Soviet homeland but in preparation for a westward attack and decisive battles on enemy territory.

Thus, when German forces struck, the bulk of Red ground and air forces were concentrated along the Soviet western borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich and Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe.

In his second book on the origins of the war, "M Day" (for "Mobilization Day"), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and systematically built up the best armed, most powerful military force in the world -- actually the world's first superpower -- for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin's drastic conversion of the country's economy for war actually made war inevitable.

As Suvorov explains, this plan was entirely consistent with Marxist-Leninist doctrine, as well as with Lenin's policies in the earlier years of the Soviet regime. The Russian historian argues convincingly that it was not Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), but rather Stalin, his less flamboyant rival, who was really the faithful disciple of Lenin in promoting world Communist revolution. Trotsky insisted on his doctrine of "permanent revolution," whereby the young Soviet state would help foment home-grown workers' uprisings and revolution in the capitalist countries.

The German "Barbarossa" attack shattered Stalin's well-laid plan to "liberate" all of Europe. In this sense, Suvorov contends, Stalin "lost" the Second World War. The Soviet premier could regard "merely" defeating Germany and conquering eastern and central Europe only as a disappointment.

Contrary to the official view that the Soviet Union was not prepared for war in June 1941, in fact, Suvorov stresses, it was the Germans who were not really prepared. Germany's hastily drawn up "Operation Barbarossa" plan, which called for a "Blitzkrieg" victory in four or five months by numerically inferior forces advancing in three broad military thrusts, was doomed from the outset.

To prove that it was Stalin, and not Hitler, who was really prepared for war, Suvorov compares German and Soviet weaponry in mid-1941, especially with respect to the all-important offensive weapons systems -- tanks and airborne forces. It is a generally accepted axiom in military science that attacking forces should have a numerical superiority of three to one over the defenders. Yet, as Suvorov explains, when the Germans struck on the morning of June 22, 1941, they attacked with a total of 3,350 tanks, while the Soviet defenders had a total of 24,000 tanks -- that is, Stalin had seven times more tanks than Hitler, or 21 times more tanks than would have been considered sufficient for an adequate defense. Moreover, Suvorov stresses, the Soviet tanks were superior in all technical respects, including firepower, range, and armor plating.

Even more lopsided was the Soviet superiority in airborne forces.

In truth, the "Big Three" anti-Hitler coalition (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill) was effectively in place even before Germany attacked Russia, and was a major reason why Hitler felt compelled to strike against Soviet Russia, and to declare war on the United States five months later. (See Hitler's speech of December 11, 1941, published in the Winter 1988-89 Journal, pp. 394-396, 402-412.)

"Barbarossa." This attack, insists Suvorov, was an enormous and desperate gamble. But threatened by superior Soviet forces poised to overwhelm Germany and Europe, Hitler had little choice but to launch this preventive strike.

But it was too little, too late. In spite of the advantage of striking first, it was the Soviets who finally prevailed. In the spring of 1945, Red army troops succeeded in raising the red banner over the Reichstag building in Berlin. It was due only to the immense sacrifices of German and other Axis forces that Soviet troops did not similarly succeed in raising the Red flag over Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Rome, Stockholm, and, perhaps, London.
 
More Suvorovians:

http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Other-War-Strategy-1939-1941/dp/0742521923/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

Longtime Soviet expert Albert L. Weeks has studied the newly-released information and come to a new conclusion about the Soviet Union's pre-war buildup--it was not precaution against German invasion at all. In fact, Weeks argues, the evidence now suggests Soviet mobilization was aimed at an eventual invasion of Nazi Germany.

Gets the backing of none other than Strobe Talbot:

Albert Weeks has made imaginative use of recently released archives to shed new light on this crucial conflict. -- Strobe Talbott, president, Brookings Institution
 
It looks that I can come to a preliminary answer to the question entailed in the title of the thread. Tomorrow I will give a summary of the new understanding of WW1 and WW2.
 
My Uncle harold called tanks 'targets'. A Rocket from a typhoon didn't even need a direct hit. A close miss could flip a panther onto it's lid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom