Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

andonemoreagain t1_j10jd9h wrote

Reply to comment by MaxApocalyptc in Operation Overlord - Allied invasion of Normandy by ristinvoitto

Oh I think the percentage is way higher than that. Practically all of the fighting capacity of the german nation was spent on the eastern front. And one hundred percent of the decisive actions occurred there. The Normandy landings were an irrelevant sideshow. Only important in determining who would rule in europe after the war.

−14

raymondcy t1_j1109mw wrote

> The Normandy landings were an irrelevant sideshow. Only important in determining who would rule in europe after the war.

While the Soviets have often been unfairly undermined for their role in the ending of WW2, what you just said is a huge stretch and, frankly, fairly offensive to the other Allied nations that gave their lives in that effort.

Could the Soviets keep running over Europe without the western front? maybe, is the answer; certainly not in a reasonable time frame. As the history of the war showed, the farther armies got away from their supply lines the more vulnerable they were. Just as in Stalingrad, there is nothing to say that Germany couldn't have regrouped and held out in their own position somewhere to amass an army for a major counter attack. And let's not forget Germany was by far technologically superior to the Soviets.

Because the German army had to defend on two fronts there is no possible way they could concentrate their forces in one position and overwhelm either front; especially after the affect that the west air power had against the Luftwaffe.

20

scottstots6 t1_j11e6w6 wrote

That ignores some pretty important stuff like the roughly 30% of the German army that was tied down in the west and the annihilation of the Luftwaffe at the hands of British and American pilots and the strategic bombing of German industry. It also ignores the other two major Axis powers but yeah go off with your Soviet-centric view of the war.

6

andonemoreagain t1_j11r1m3 wrote

If 30% of the army was occupied in the west they would be the 30% sprinting to surrender to the Americans so they could continue to re-establish the fascist order in Western Europe together after the war. It was not a decisive theater of war. No matter how many times you study the documentary saving private ryan.

−10

scottstots6 t1_j11s20c wrote

I don’t know what you are trying to say about post war fascism, pretty clear it never got reestanlished in Europe. Also, the vitriol and ad hominems are unnecessary. I like how you glossed over the Luftwaffe being destroyed by the Western Allies and the other two Axis major powers that were defeated almost entirely by the West. Also the lend lease to the Soviets and the fact that the Soviet started the war by helping Germany invade and conquer countries. If you want to talk about helping fascists look no further than the Soviets. Obviously, the Eastern Front absorbed the bulk of German troops but industrial output by theater is a different matter. And the Soviets couldn’t have done it without the support of the Western Allies.

4

MaxApocalyptc t1_j10kbbn wrote

And the fact that the soviets defeated the Japanese is something worth notice. The atomic bombs were just a demonstration of power that US aimed to scare the soviets. But under Stalin leadership the soviets developed atomic bombs in 1949.

−14

HUP t1_j10ot9k wrote

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. The US was planning on invading the Home Islands. The firebombing campaign killed many more Japanese than did the A-bomb drops. And had not weakened Japanese resolve to fight to the last. The atomic bombs were meant primarily to show Japan that we would not NEED to give them a "glorious end" by a land invasion. Ancillary it was a sign to the USSR that we had a technological advantage. The USSR stole their Nuclaer program via espionage. They would've been years farther behind without these guys.

6

MaxApocalyptc t1_j10rfvp wrote

Yes, the atomic bombs were product of inteligentia. But the fact is that the us were late to do anything at the final conflict in Manchucko. Soviets liberated China and Korea, the us came late and proposed the division of the Korea. The fact is that the bombs were not necessary, the bombs were dropped in the beginning of August and the Japanese just surrendered later that month, even after the bombs they kept fighting the soviets. The bombs did nothing to end the war.

−10

SailboatAB t1_j129syc wrote

Interesting. It's not often one sees a Russian propaganda bot so clearly. Usually they're better disguised.

4

andonemoreagain t1_j10kli5 wrote

Ha, we might be the only two people that agree with each other in this thread. But yeah what percentage of Japanese soldiers were defeated by red army on the mainland of Asia? Way more than half.

−9

wheresmysnack t1_j10zc32 wrote

What? Where did you get this information from? There was LITERALLY no fighting between Russia and Japan until the final months of the war.

Edit: It wasn't even until after the atomic bombs dropped that the USSR even declared war on Japan.

13

MaxApocalyptc t1_j1123q0 wrote

I got tons of bibliography cause I'm a historian. But just looking to your profile gives me the vibe "don't waste your time"

−9

The_Etch t1_j115nig wrote

His references go to another school

6

GargantuanGorgon t1_j118cs9 wrote

You may be a historian, but he did say "literally" in all caps so...

0

MaxApocalyptc t1_j119l58 wrote

I guess I have to rip my credentials and start studying in a renowned neoliberal business university to learn the real history.

−1

Appropriate-Weird795 t1_j11g9ul wrote

Considering the comments on this thread Max, there is no shortage of opinion- just facts. You are entitled to your opinions; just not your own facts, sir.

3

scottstots6 t1_j11cmyq wrote

This isn’t even a little true, the two militaries that inflicted the most casualties on Japan were the Chinese Nationalists and the United States with Commonwealth forces in 3rd. The Red Army isn’t even close to inflicting half of the casualties on the Japanese forces. During the war, the only fighting between them was the Invasion of Manchuria where the Soviets fought a badly trained and under equipped Japanese army.

5

occasional_cynic t1_j111ycq wrote

> Way more than half.

Is this a joke? The Japanese basically had nothing more than a large army corps in Manchuria by 1945.

4

MaxApocalyptc t1_j112bjf wrote

I think he meant the entire japanese forces occupying the north. I think 50% is low too tbh

−1