Who Could Have Won WWII?

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

Well you said "decades of Soviet lies and misinformation is gradually being chipped away at by people like Glantz"

Indeed I did. Of course, you left out the context. So I'll put it back in.

Originally Posted by RN7

Originally Posted by RN7
So are you implying that the Soviets (and the Germans) lied about the Eastern Front in the Second World War, and that we should discount the forces listed as being present in the campaigns and battles on the Eastern Front and the casualty rates incurred during them?

I replied with ... "

You seem hell bent on telling me that I said things that I most patently did not say.

I mentioned nothing about whether the Germans lied about their experiences on the Eastern Front at all, ever, anywhere.

As for the Soviets lying. Have you read Glantz and other, less well known, post-89 historians of the Eastern Front?

Did the Soviets dissembled, obfuscate, mislead, misdirect, fabricate and outright lie about much of what actually happened on the Eastern Front and in Russia during the war?

Hell yes.

Which is demonstrably true. If, indeed, you have read the post 1989 works by Glantz and others.

Originally Posted by RN7

But the Germans were fighting the Soviets so they might be better placed to judge whether the Soviets were spinning lies.

Seriously?

I mean, seriously?

ROTFL!

It is well understood, indeed, it was well understood even a couple of decades before Glantz started his publication of work based on the Soviet archives, that the Germans never. ever. had. a. clew. of the actual Soviet numbers. Not before Barbarossa and not at any stage during it.

Heck, the apologist Generals writing for the US at the end of the war admitted as much themselves.

Originally Posted by RN7

I like to read but I also like to analyse what I read and reach my own conclusion.

Interesting that you have come to a conclusion that is not held by pretty much any serious scholar of the topic.

Originally Posted by RN7

So what were the Soviet lies? Were they deceiving everyone about the size of the forces involved in the campaigns on the Eastern Front, their war production figures, their dependency on Lend Lease or their casualty rates?

You haven't read Glantz or any post-89 scholarship, have you?

When Titans Clashed is a good overview, you might like to start there. You evidently wouldn't believe anything I might tell you anyway, so go and read for yourself.

Phil

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Indeed I did. Of course, you left out the context. So I'll put it back in.

I replied with ... "

Which is demonstrably true. If, indeed, you have read the post 1989 works by Glantz and others.

Seriously?

I mean, seriously?

ROTFL!

It is well understood, indeed, it was well understood even a couple of decades before Glantz started his publication of work based on the Soviet archives, that the Germans never. ever. had. a. clew. of the actual Soviet numbers. Not before Barbarossa and not at any stage during it.

Heck, the apologist Generals writing for the US at the end of the war admitted as much themselves.

You know I actually asked you a question about how the Soviets lied in the Second World War, and I also asked you to explain your earlier remark about how Lend Lease allowed the Soviet to build armaments as unlike Britain they weren't capable of producing anything else by themselves. I also asked you for a comparison of Lend Lease supplies that Britain and the Soviet Union received from the United States. But you have dodged those question. How about you answer them.

Also you keep quoting "authors" to others and I to validate your argument. Do you believe that everyone else on here is not a well read as you? You would be surprised about how many well educated members we have on this board.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Interesting that you have come to a conclusion that is not held by pretty much any serious scholar of the topic.

And are you one of those scholars?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

You haven't read Glantz or any post-89 scholarship, have you?

When Titans Clashed is a good overview, you might like to start there. You evidently wouldn't believe anything I might tell you anyway, so go and read for yourself.

Well if I did or did not I wouldn't be coming on here bragging about it.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

You know I actually asked you a question about how the Soviets lied in the Second World War, and I also asked you to explain your earlier remark about how Lend Lease allowed the Soviet to build armaments as unlike Britain they weren't capable of producing anything else by themselves. I also asked you for a comparison of Lend Lease supplies that Britain and the Soviet Union received from the United States. But you have dodged those question. How about you answer them.

No. You have repeatedly asked what the Soviets lied about. And I have repeatedly explained.

Pretty much everything.

And you repeatedly fail to grasp that.

Barber and Harrison's works on the Soviet War Economy, previously cited, including the link to the online paper I provided, answer most of them. But you obviously haven't read them.

Maiolo's work 'Cry Havoc' explains some of the others. As does Tooze's "Wages of Destruction' ... but you don't seem to be aware of the former and haven't had time to consult the latter as I only mentioned it in a just posted response.

Originally Posted by RN7

Also you keep quoting "authors" to others and I to validate your argument. Do you believe that everyone else on here is not a well read as you? You would be surprised about how many well educated members we have on this board.

Of course one quotes sources to support an argument. They are, in all ways, better than unsupported personal assertions.

As for whether people are as well read as I or not, I have no idea. I merely point them in the direction of sources that support the statements I have made so that they can check them out themselves.

This is especially important as you have made it plain that you do not believe a single thing I have said, even when incontrovertibly true ... so, obviously, it is necessary for me to provide the documentary evidence in the form of citations.

But you evidently don't even believe those, or can't be bothered to check them out ... and I'm giving you a free ride about many of the more ridiculous and provably incorrect unsupported personal assertions you have made, such as the ridiculous numbers for tonnages sunk by U-Boats or the lack of understanding of what Operational Radius for aircraft is (to name just two recent ones).

Feel free to provide your sources for those two furphies.

Phil

[Legbreaker]

And I thought I was well read on the subject! So many new references I'm going to have to track down and digest!

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

And I thought I was well read on the subject! So many new references I'm going to have to track down and digest!

Have you read Bergerud's 'Touched with Fire' and "Fire in the Sky' on, respectively, land and air warfare in the SW Pacific?

For an American author, he gives a surprisingly nuanced view of the war, and has nice (and demonstrably true) things to say about us Aussies ...

Phil

[Legbreaker]

I'm afraid not. That'll be another one to find.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

No. You have repeatedly asked what the Soviets lied about. And I have repeatedly explained.

Pretty much everything.

And you repeatedly fail to grasp that.

No you haven't, you have not answered one question directly about what I asked you about how the Soviets lied in WW2, or how Lend Lease allowed the Soviet to build armaments as they weren't capable of producing anything else by themselves, or a comparison of Lend Lease supplies that Britain and the Soviet Union received from the United States. All you have done is quote the name of authors of books you say you have read or possess instead of giving a brief or detailed explanation as to whatever suits you. I don't know why you or for what reason you keep doing it but it would be helpful if you could just could answer what I asked you.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Barber and Harrison's works on the Soviet War Economy, previously cited, including the link to the online paper I provided, answer most of them. But you obviously haven't read them.

Maiolo's work 'Cry Havoc' explains some of the others. As does Tooze's "Wages of Destruction' ... but you don't seem to be aware of the former and haven't had time to consult the latter as I only mentioned it in a just posted response.

Well if you included a link I certainly missed it. And once again could you type or copy and paste in plain English no matter how brief about what you mean so we can debate it in a civil fashion.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Of course one quotes sources to support an argument. They are, in all ways, better than unsupported personal assertions.

You could just state your position with some supporting argument and then quote an author as well.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

As for whether people are as well read as I or not, I have no idea. I merely point them in the direction of sources that support the statements I have made so that they can check them out themselves.

So your reasons for implying that I am not very well read, have a deficiency in knowledge or maybe am incapable of understanding your wisdom is what?

[QUOTE=aspqrz;68678] This is especially important as you have made it plain that you do not believe a single thing I have said, even when incontrovertibly true ... so, obviously, it is necessary for me to provide the documentary evidence in the form of citations

No not believing and not agreeing are two different thing. How about you just answer questions directly and then maybe quote one of your authors if you feel that you need to as its not a competition about who has read the most books.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

But you evidently don't even believe those, or can't be bothered to check them out ... and I'm giving you a free ride about many of the more ridiculous and provably incorrect unsupported personal assertions you have made, such as the ridiculous numbers for tonnages sunk by U-Boats or the lack of understanding of what Operational Radius for aircraft is (to name just two recent ones).

I don't know what you are implying and I am trying to be polite despite your insulting tone and its becoming increasingly difficult to be polite. You claim you are giving me a free ride. About what exactly?

I've been collecting books for over 30 years and have compiled data for my own interest in the Second World War and other topics for as long. These days a lot of this information is also available on the internet. I'm comfortable with my numbers and I can give you a break down of losses by the month, tonnage and number for Allied and Axis merchant ship losses from 1939-45 if you want.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Feel free to provide your sources for those two furphies.

Whatever a furphies is you will note that I earlier supported in this threat the importance of British anti-submarine advances in WW2. I have a book collection in two different countries and it would take me weeks to list them. For naval data of the top of my head....

Allied Escort Ships of WWII: P. Elliott
Atlas of Naval Warfare : H. Pemsel
Britain's Sea War: a Diary of Ship Losses 1939-45: J.M Young
Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-45: J. Rohwer & G. Hummelchen
Submarines of World War Two: E. Bagnasco
The German Navy in WW2: J.C Taylor
The Liberty Ships: L.A Laywer W.H. Mitchell
The Mediterranean and the Middle East: I.S.O Playfair
The War at Sea: S.W. Roskill
U Boat war in the Atlantic 1939-45: MOD
Victory Ships and Tankers: David & Charles
Warships of the World: T. Lenton & J. J. Colledge

I can't at this late hour remember the titles and authors of the other ones I
have, some are more technical and relate to naval orbats, ship types etc and some are small magazine articles long forgotten about but still in my attic or two.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
No. You have repeatedly asked what the Soviets lied about. And I have repeatedly explained.

Pretty much everything.

And you repeatedly failed to grasp that.

Originally posted by RN7
No you haven't, you have not answered one question directly about what I asked you about how the Soviets lied in WW2.

Um.

What part of 'pretty much everything' was unclear as an answer?

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Barber and Harrison's works on the Soviet War Economy, previously cited, including the link to the online paper I provided, answer most of them. But you obviously haven't read them.

Maiolo's work 'Cry Havoc' explains some of the others. As does Tooze's "Wages of Destruction' ... but you don't seem to be aware of the former and haven't had time to consult the latter as I only mentioned it in a just posted response.

Originally posted by RN7
Well if you included a link I certainly missed it. And once again could you type or copy and paste in plain English no matter how brief about what you mean so we can debate it in a civil fashion.

Um.

I am not sure what you think I have been doing, but the books I cited support the arguments I have been making in plain English.

Which is why I cited them.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
As for whether people are as well read as I or not,*I have no idea. I merely point them in the direction of sources that support the statements I have made so that they can check them out themselves.

So your reasons for implying that I am not very well read, have a deficiency in knowledge or maybe am incapable of understanding your wisdom is what?

I have no idea whether you are well read or not.

I post the cites partly so anyone and everyone can check that they say what I have said they say – and in the hope that they actually read them to ascertain just that.

Whether you know or don't know anything is neither here nor there with regards to the cites …

I have provided them since you have made it plain that you do not believe a single thing I have said …

Phil

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Um.

I am not sure what you think I have been doing, but the books I cited support the arguments I have been making in plain English.

Which is why I cited them.

Phil

No they don't