|
Post by MysticX2X on Nov 10, 2008 16:56:58 GMT -5
Ok, after a long weekend, I finally have came over my laughter of this thread with Gladius. On a further note, I am happy Gladius put down the Pearl Harbor Debate...IN my favor =). Dude why do you continue to think Kursk was some sort of retreat? It's not like both sides showed up one day, gazed at each other from across the field, then the germans retreated. The actual battle went on for several days, where the german attack kept slowing down as they went deeper and deeper into the russian lines. Eventually the attack stalled down to nothing and hitler made the decision to retreat at this time to avoid another stalingrad. Sure, the sicily thing didn't help his situation but make no mistake: kursk was a massive german failure even before they retreated. Massive German failure? Define massive failure. Just retreating or actually giving more damage? Cmon Gladius, think a little. LMAO. Dude.....Time doesnt have poo to do with this. D-Day may of been shorter, but it was more of an affect. In fact, D-Day never even had an ending...It was just an Invasion that consisted of several other battles. I can roughly argue that D-Day lasted until the end of the war in late 1945. [/quote] ok dude, Shut up about Stalingrad. D-Day was way more effective than Stalingrad. Did Stalingrad severely puncture the German Defense? Nope. Did D-Day? Yes. D-Day swept through the beaches, through France with the battle of Bastone. It practically obliterated the German defense and any chance to recooperate their forces through the end of the war. D-Day>Stalingrad. End of story, Gladius. I don't want to hear it
|
|
|
Post by gladius on Nov 10, 2008 17:22:14 GMT -5
Massive failure because they completely failed to take their objective and lost a large amount of tanks that they could never recover from.
Operation Overlord was the amphibious invasion of france. The breakout afterwards, the capture of paris, and the pushing back of german forces to the franco-german border were completely different operations. Do not believe you can link they all to D-day (note the word 'day' in there).
Of course Stalingrad didn't punchure the german defense; the germans were on the offensive. You're going to keep reading it until you wake up. The ammount of material damage was greater in stalingrad. The ammount of morale damage was greater in stalingrad. The ammount of political damage was greater in stalingrad. It was something the russian population could rally behind as a sign of hope against the facist invaders. It forever changed the war. The germans were on the defensive rather than the offensive. By the time D-day occured, germany was fighting a losing battle against an ever-increasing tide of enemies. Like I said before, D-day was a catalyst; speeding up the end of the war. It didn't change the war itself. The western allies had already been fighting and winning against germany in several other places. Until stalingrad, the russians were getting their ass raped accross the board. D-day continued the streak. Stalingrad forever changed it. When will you learn?
PS: I didn't realize you could win a debate about pearl harbor by suggesting false claims about it. Need I school you some more? I hate to revive dead things but if I must turn to necromancy then I shall.
|
|
|
Post by MysticX2X on Nov 16, 2008 11:26:01 GMT -5
Alright, so I'm back with my conquest in Africa. Back to you now, Gladius. Massive failure because they completely failed to take their objective and lost a large amount of tanks that they could never recover from. Ok, but that didn't neutralize them so much from the amount of their reserves. Okay. But D-Day was the beginning of it all. IT was the match setter and led to many future events thereafter. I didn't say D-Day was all of the battles combined, but it certainly was the beginning of the end for Germany as i must say. Do you think Germany was on any offensive after D-Day? Sorry, but you spelled "amount" wrong in several different sentences. It made me cry irl. But you fail to see my point. Stalingrad DID severely weaken the German forces, but it didn't end the war for them just yet. The German forces even did well in The third battle of Kharkob(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Kharkov), which took place after Stalingrad. The point is that D-Day was the beginning of the end for Germany. Germany's defense was severely getting weakened as the Allied Forces kept closing in and we all know when your Defense gets weak, there is chance of you losing greatly (Hey, we can make a tie to CTF as well!) Lmao, i owned you with school facts and factual information. They did send out a message to the pentagon about peral harbors attacks. And the Japanese informed the Americans just a bit after the attacks started. Note it wasn't like 5 hours after, more like less than an hour. The government knew in time is what I'm saying. Could the US of helped Pearl Harbor if they knew a few seconds after the attacks started? Probably not as it would take an hour to get there and you would only arrive just in time for the aftermatch. Go watch "Tora Tora tora". It's pretty concise. Get out of my sight. You don't know jack, noob.
|
|
|
Post by gladius on Nov 16, 2008 12:54:31 GMT -5
Um, again it's been ****ing 6 days since the last post was posted. Why the **** do you continue to revive dead threads?
Look dude. Russia could replace any of their losses during the last 2 years of the war. Germany could not. So when Germany's army got owned at Kursk, it was a major blow. Specifically their tank corps, which got decimated, since german tanks were complicated and took a long time to make. Never again did germany have enough tanks to make a quality stand in the east ever again. I'm pretty sure that's significant.
Um...you have heard of the Battle of the Buldge haven't you? I'll say this again. By the time D-Day occured, germany was already on the way to losing the war. They had been pushed out of africa, italy had been invaded, and they were losing badly in the east. The 'second front' in the west was a nail in the coffin. It ended the war faster, but it did not forever change the war. Stalingrad did. Until that point, Germany hadn't been defeated. Poland, France, Norway, Africa (outside of egypt), and obviously the push into Russia. Russia was on the verge of losing the war, and had little hope to hang their hats on. Stalingrad changed that. Not only was an entire german army group defeated/captured, the entire outlook of the war changed. Each german loss was significant since they had a much smaller pool of reserves to pull from. The capture of stalingrad was a major german campaign since it would have opened up the path to the russian oil fields to the south, which was a key objective to keep the german tank blitzkreig going. With the failure at stalingrad, the oil fields could not be captured. Outside of the minor details, the major detail of this: germany was no longer seen as invincible on the battlefield. The victory united the russian people and they started to rally. Russian finally found a general who was more than a match for the german commanders in Zukhov. Russia was able to turn the tide of the war and take the initiative. The counterattacks at Stalingrad recaptured a good portion of land from the germans. Although they stopped after a while to regroup, the Russians were forever on their way to recapturing their lands one farm at a time, and eventually winning the war in Berlin. Now stop argueing against the facts.
Um I'm pretty sure that I never said Stalingrad won the war for russia. But like I said it forever changed the future of the war. D-day was the beginning of the end, yes. But germany was already fighting a losing the battle at that point and it just ended the war quicker. D-day continued the process that was going on. Stalingrad turned everything around. Haven't I said this before?
How is 'informing the Americans after the attacks started' qualify as 'the goverment knew in time'? The fact is, there were clues suggesting the Japs might turn aggressive, but there was no reason to completely suspect an attack at any second from a country they weren't at war with. Even if the government knew about it ahead of time, the time a message would take would be days. What were they supposed to say even? 'Be prepared for an attack any time any day from a nation we're at peace with'? Common dude. Unless they were at war, there was no reason to suspect an attack from a peaceful nation on a sunday morning at 8 am.
I know facts. You ain't got jack.
|
|
|
Post by MysticX2X on Nov 20, 2008 12:04:55 GMT -5
Still going to reply to this so stfu about me not replying for days gladius.
|
|
|
Post by MysticX2X on Nov 22, 2008 8:24:55 GMT -5
I felt like replying so stfu about being late for 6 days. I was busy in africa.
Ok but the Russian Army was severely hurt none the less. The Germans had many in reserve.
Battle of the buldge was post D-Day...Germany had better times before D-Day and the Allied landings were the beginning of the end.
You see Gladius, the turning point of the war is very debatable. This debate is a lost cause about that. All I'm trying to point out was that Germany could of been much more successful if they had prevented D-Day by letting their troops in reserve out.
@ Pearl Harbor: I already showed you they knew it was happening during the attacks. I showed you the suspicion of some government members knowing about the attacks with Japan. I showed you that the Americans should of been really good on security, especially during war time. I showed you the increasing conflicts with the japanese. What more do you want before you realize i won this debate about Pearl harbor lol?
|
|
|
Post by gladius on Nov 22, 2008 13:53:54 GMT -5
Still as wrong as ever, ey mystic?
Russian # reserves 20 times greater than # german reserves. You have no point here.
Germany was already losing the war slowly by the time D-day rolled around. I've listed numerous battles they already lost to that point. The list of the battles they lost before Stalingrad is much, much shorter. The germans were winning the war until that point, which is why it was the turning point. Get it yet?
First off, it was not "during war time" since we were at peace. Tenth time I've said that. There weren't "increasing conflicts" with japan. Things were turning for the worst, but by no means were we going to war unless something drastic happened. There was no reason to suspect an attack from a nation we weren't fighting. We weren't even prepared for a war. The depression still had lingering effects and the New Deal was slowly turning things around. The fact is, the government had hints of an attack, but there wasn't a "we're about to get ****ed up" warning anywhere along the way. Japan meant to tell us of the attack about an hour beforehand (like that would make it better) but the message was delayed and wasn't received until after the attack was finished. Quit arguing against the facts.
|
|