TFT *SPOILERS* thoughts, discussions, and future speculation

lyonheart wrote:
Perhaps because they have such wonderful memories of the Katyn forest and other examples of soviet 'liberation' too numerous to mention.

After about 80000 Soviet POWs died in Poland camps in 1920s, USSR for "some reasons" wasnt very benevolent about Polish officers, you know...

Show me where Poland ever made such massacres SOP that routine in the soviet union,

Sigh. Jedwabne pogrom, Szczuczyn pogrom, and numerous other cases, when "nice, kindly" polish peoples massacred jews civilians. In some cases in 1941, German occupation fòrces (!!!) were forced to interfer to stop massacre.

NTM against even their own people let alone starving millions of Ukrainians, Kazakhs, etc; or the tens of millions killed in the gulags or were they a myth too?.

Actually they are. The so-called Holodomor was the combination of stupidity of Party leadership (which eagerly believed the widely exaggerated claims about grain yield), the idiocity of local governments (which were so eager to please the superiors, that they took nearly all grain from Kolkhoz's, even the next year supply) and bad weather conditions. By combining, those three factors created the disaster... albeit during the Russian Empire such famines were pretty much regular.

Tens of millions killed in Gulags... seriously? The whole population if Soviet Union by 1939 was about 170 millions, and you claim that nearly 20% of all population were detained (and another 20% presumably guarded them?)

Please learn something besides child fairy tales about "bloody communists". The total numbers of detained from 1924 to 1954 was about 3,2 millions. Nothing to be proud about, I agree, but not the apocalyptic numbers. Especially if you consider than MUCH larger percent of Poland population was de-facto detained in jews ghettos.

The history is not black and white, kid. It is gray and gray with sparkles of white and blots of black everywhere.

lyonheart wrote:Again you're being rather simplistic; the US Army didn't collapse and run the way so many French, British, Russian, German and Italian armies did when the enemy made a breakthrough etc.


L

One small problem. In similar conditions near lake Balaton, the German army didnt even manage a breakthrought. German panzer divisions bled to death without even penetrating our defense lines. And what remains were immediately routed by Soviet counteroffensive.

The point I was trying to demonstrate - and you obviously failed to notice - is that Soviet OPERATIONAL ART was much superior to Allied. We simply have much better experience in operating large numbers of troops in coordination. We have perfected the deep operation strategy while the best that Patton could imagine was 1941-style blitzkrieg. It worked, all right - but Soviet worked better, despite the numerous material shortcomings.

Hi Noblehunter,

noblehunter wrote:

SCC wrote:I think you guys are being too historical, personally I think Zhermo Hygyns is based on Trump, but probably smarter.

There are darn few billionaires around, but I suspect their IQ's are higher than you seem to think, whereas we have it stated the Zhermo is an economic ignoramus.
[/quote]

I doubt there's such thing as too historical with RFC. The problem is that there's too much history to pick from. RFC likes to build things with historical parallels but doesn't hew to them as closely as some "alternate" history authors do. So even if we guess which economic crisis or outburst of xenophobic populism RFC is modeling this on, it will only stay relevant until it isn't any more.

[/quote]
ABSOLUTELY!
[/quote]

I'm hoping Hygyns will get blamed for the worst of the effects of the collapse because he's the guy in charge and then lose the next election.[/quote]

[/quote]
Nope, he'll be re-elected, because it will take at least ten years to REALLY screw up Siddarmark, NTM there won't be any serious opposition no matter how bad it will be.

How RFC then punishes him will be very interesting.

TFT and its sequel should be considered for reading for early classes in the dismal science the students might actually learn something.

L

Hi Dilandu,

Dilandu wrote:

lyonheart wrote:Again you're being rather simplistic; the US Army didn't collapse and run the way so many French, British, Russian, German and Italian armies did when the enemy made a breakthrough etc.


L

One small problem. In similar conditions near lake Balaton, the German army didnt even manage a breakthrough. German panzer divisions bled to death without even penetrating our defense lines. And what remains were immediately routed by Soviet counteroffensive.

The point I was trying to demonstrate - and you obviously failed to notice - is that Soviet OPERATIONAL ART was much superior to Allied. We simply have much better experience in operating large numbers of troops in coordination. We have perfected the deep operation strategy while the best that Patton could imagine was 1941-style blitzkrieg. It worked, all right - but Soviet worked better, despite the numerous material shortcomings.

[/quote]

Sorry, you apparently misunderstood I wasn't criticizing Soviet operational art, which I do respect.
I was criticizing its EXECUTION, and the soviet record demonstrates it was usually pretty horrible execution even when there was plenty of material.

But let me get this straight, you seriously think the the Battle of the Bulge compares with "Spring Awakening"?

Why don't you mention how outnumbered the Germans were in tanks, artillery, aircraft, not to mention troops and trucks by the Soviet Army Front they attacked; they were doomed from the start and they knew it.
Then compare that 3rd Ukrainian Soviet Army Front to the thin outnumbered American line in the BoB, and you might have a clue why I think your comparison is pathetic.

That you think they are comparable is typical Russian misrepresentation if not dishonesty, another case of nekulturny, unless you think 5-6 US Army divisions are equal to 55 soviet, then thank you for the complement.

L

lyonheart wrote:
Sorry you apparently misunderstood I wasn't criticizing Soviet operational art, I was criticizing its EXECUTION, and the soviet record demonstrates it was usually pretty horrible execution even when there was plenty of material.

Considering that "execution" led to German army being destroyed, I fail to see what the "execution problems" you mention. The high losses? The majority of Soviet losses were in wounded, who quickly returned to service due to actually excellent Soviet battlefield medicine (noted by British medical personnel). The majority of German losses, were prisoners & wounded, who do NOT quickly return to service due to abysmal state of German medicine (they still practices cauterization as normal, not emergency procedure, could you believe it?!). While we lost a lot of tanks, it was because we used them VERY actively & lacked the APC's for infantry support.

Why don't you mention how outnumbered the Germans were in tanks, artillery, aircraft, not to mention troops and trucks by the Soviet Army Front they attacked, they were doomed from the start and they knew it.

Because the same situation was on Western Front also. In both cases, Germans created a local superiority to attempt the breakthrough. In Ardennes, they managed that. Under Balaton, it turned into immediate disaster.

Lyonheart
In 1944+ the British were going up the much tougher coastal route which would have caused extreme US casualties....that's why the armies were set out that way
Let them play to their strengths
UK had been in the war taking casualties years longer than the USA so that was a massive SOCIAL issue.

French leadership collapsed in 1940 largely as a result of too many older officers who'd been brought up on the insane "aggressive" doctrine that got their men butchered in 1914/1915
And those officers basically had a collective mental breakdown when things went wrong in 1940
And Europe damn near had a total revolution because of the carnage in 1918
Thus, worrying over "casualties" wasn't a joke to nations and officers who'd suffered that.

Monty was an arrogant ass, so was Patton and Patton didn't have the skills/temperament for the slower "grind" up the coast, he was great at "blitzkrieg".

My great uncle fought in France 1940, they didn't "run" they got beaten by having as usual, top brass mind set of the last war fought, and the poor bloody French having top brass that melted down.
French and British could have defeated the Germans but....
Oh and then he came back in 1944, ended up liberating Belsen
British troops in 1940 had to deal with the Luftwaffe scum butchering civilians on road and trains, which FYI was very hard on the troops to cope with mentally
And yeah "scum" deliberate policy of slaughtering refugees
Alas UK took up civilian slaughter from the air, too

My 2 grandads fought in North Africa/Italy and Burma respectively
Paternal was in Royal Artillery, at one point 25 pounder firing over open sights as antitank gunner. Was buried alive twice by shell fire, one occasion ALL his Indian mates in the section drowned in the sand because of that. Was also at Monte Cassino.
Maternal was in the Chindits and saw what the Japanese did with prisoners and their 14 inch SMLE bayonets...though he said what they did to the local people especially their women was even worse.

And I don't think the US would be so damn complacent of casualties causing issues after Saipan.
It IS a serious issue.
Sigh

Dilandu,
While the Ukrainian famine did have elements of natural and basic human error, Stalin DID make it worse, to what extent we can argue but he was very happy to see his biggest problem weakened

Another part of it was the insane state of Soviet agricultural science thanks to that rat Trofim Lysenko
And Lysenko would never have been able to ruin the Soviet Sciences if Stalin hasn't empowered him and his deranged political/botanical beliefs!
His nuttery made or worsened famines and other problems across the USSR, as well as got many scientists gulaged or neckshot.

After capturing Berlin, Soviet army was a wreck, it likely would have fallen eventually after great carnage on both sides if there'd been another war
It took over 5 years for Soviet Union to recover military and otherwise
Terrible management, brutality, stupid political demands on things had caused tremendous harm to the USSR's systems
Collapse in face of another war was a serious issue, not immediately, but after a year or two

SilverbladeTE wrote:
My great uncle fought in France 1940, they didn't "run" they got beaten by having as usual, top brass mind set of the last war fought, and the poor bloody French having top brass that melted down.
Sigh

Agreed. French soldiers and officers fought bravely in 1940. It wasn't in any way their fault, that their military & civilians leader put them in hopeless situation, which no amount of brave sacrifice could remedy.

SilverbladeTE wrote:Dilandu,
While the Ukrainian famine did have elements of natural and basic human error, Stalin DID make it worse, to what extent we can argue but he was very happy to see his biggest problem weakened

I'm sorry, did Stalin told you personally what was his "biggest problem"?

Another part of it was the insane state of Soviet agricultural science thanks to that rat Trofim Lysenko
And Lysenko would never have been able to ruin the Soviet Sciences if Stalin hasn't empowered him and his deranged political/botanical beliefs!

...I'm sorry do disappoint you, but in 1932-1934 Lysenko was a humble but promising scientist in Vesouzny Genetic & Selection University, and his works on vernalization were highly praised not only by Vavilov himself, but still remain very important part of modern wheat selection.

His nuttery made or worsened famines and other problems across the USSR, as well as got many scientists gulaged or neckshot.

Again, common myth. Being a plant geneticist by education (and studying in Timirazyev Academy, where Vavilov worked), I could say that Lysenko was a perfectly competent scientist in his area - but, unfortunately, he tended to think that he is competent in ALL plant biology. He wasn't just "some kind of nut", he represented a rather powerful block of scientists, that did not believe in DNA genetics - and at this time, there were SERIOUS problems in DNA genetics, which (at this time) directly contradicted Darwin's Evolution Theory. Only later this problems were solved.

Lysenko is guilty in using the political instruments against his opponents (unfortunately, it was... common for this time, and, unfortunately, the other side wasn't exactly all "good guys" too - they also used political force quite eagerly), and in considering himself specialist in all areas of plant biology.

P.S. And, actually, Lysenko works on new wheat varieties helped to STOP the famine - that's why he rise so fast in power and prestige in late 1930s.

After capturing Berlin, Soviet army was a wreck,

What exact army? You see, Soviet Union operated in terms of "fronts", which were combinations of multiple armies. The First Belorussian Front, that directly participated in Berlin operation, was composed out of EIGHTEEN armies (including two Polish armies), and it was only a fraction - big one, but still fraction - of Soviet forces in Europe.

That's why I maintain that Soviet Army was MUCH superior in operating large number of troops than anyone else in 1945. The US military operated armies. We operated dozens of armies simultaneously and in perfect coordination basically across all Europe, from Baltic to Adriatic.

Dilandu wrote:

lyonheart wrote:
Perhaps because they have such wonderful memories of the Katyn forest and other examples of soviet 'liberation' too numerous to mention.

After about 80000 Soviet POWs died in Poland camps in 1920s, USSR for "some reasons" wasnt very benevolent about Polish officers, you know...

"Due to epidemics raging at the time, made worse by the very bad sanitary conditions in which the prisoners were held, largely due to overcrowding, between 16,000 and 20,000 Soviet soldiers held in the Polish POW camps died, out of the total of 80,000 to 85,000 prisoners."

from: POLISH-RUSSIAN FINDINGS ON THE SITUATION OF RED ARMY SOLDIERS IN POLISH CAPTIVITY (1919–1922). Official Polish government note about 2004 Rezmar, Karpus and Matvejev book. Last accessed on 26 May 2006.

So between 16,000 and 20,000 soviet soldiers died, not 80,000.

Also, there is a "little" difference beetween death from bad conditions, and killing deliberately officers by shooting them in their head, don't you think?

Rest of your arguments i will check later.