OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

One movie studio in Russia finished a new WWII movie, "The story of the convoy PQ-17" It is 90% computer graphics. Only live action are humans. Ships, planes, etc. are computer generated.
You can watch the quality here:
http://newsru.com/arch/cinema/12feb2004/pq17.html

It is a ruusian site but you can watch video clips and snapshots by going to big triangle with "Bse Foto" or a link "1 fragment filma"

I don't know how much you know about the tragig story of PQ-17 but it is a rare but very disturbing example of the blatant cowardice of the Royal Navy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Ok, but why did you say (in thread title) we won't ever see it?

PvK

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Because it will never be shown in US or UK.
Maybe in Germany or France - they are more tolerant of non-Holywood production.

When did you Last see a russian movie ? And there are a lot of very good, believe me but they will never shown in the West - no happy ending, no waving of US flag and why bother to translate that slavic gibberish??

[ February 13, 2004, 21:21: Message edited by: oleg ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

I think it will be a second screening of Valentin Pikul's book. First one was "Bayazet" and it was awfull. Hope this attempt will be better.

"Why, oh, why russian movies unknown to western audience!" - compare "Solaris" by Tarkovsky and Last Sodenberg rubbish and everything will be clear. (You may also compare them both with original Lem's book and you'll understand who is the best sci-fi writer of XX century).

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmm, but this kind of things happen all the time.
How many films done in the India you saw? And this country it's a giantinc producing films...

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

hollywood should remember that anywhere other than the us their films are foreign films.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

oleg why bother http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

i will purchase this on dvd if i can.

and you will keep an eye out for me.

Perhaps you could help me with some other russian war movies.

I have seen a few over the years.

But I have no clue of what the titles were

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Oleg,

I live in Norfolk Virignia, US. If you are ever in the area you should check out the Naro cinema and video rental store. Why? becuase they are simply amazing in their selection. Specifically, they have an entire bookshelf of hundreds (4-500) of movies from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.. I admit I haven;t yet rented any of them, but I will at some point...in any case, my point is: all is not lost! There are outlets and audiences for Slavic Cinema in the US!

thanks,

Alarik


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Marketing is why you prolly wont see it in the states.

BUT.....This is a issue that can be debated at length. So I will toss the first stone http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Every story has two sides. The point should be made that the Americans and British did not want the convoy to sail until early winter. The route was well covered by land based air and there were significant German navel units in the area. In 1942, the British were very short of convoy escort units and needed them to protect their own life lines. The Soviets forced the issue and the convoy sailed. A side note here that is ignored by history is how close the USSR came to making a separate peace with Germany.

The convoy was originally escorted by the carriers HMS Victorious and USS Washington. But these could not be risked past the North Cape because of German air power. The escort which had four destroyers and 10 corvettes (armed trawlers) and five detached cruisers. The cruisers were not the big gun variety, but small fast sub hunters. When the Tripitz and Prinz Eugen sailed along with about 10 destroyers, the British ships were forced to flee. Common tactical practicality dictated this action. Then the Germans flew more than 200 sorties against the convoy also attacking with 4 U boats.

The blame here lies with the Soviet government. They demanded that the convoy sail against the advice of their allies, and the blame falls squarely upon their mismanagement of the Soviet military and conduct of the war.

PQ 18 was held until fall and was escorted by (IIRC) 50+ ships. Losses were also bad, 13 ships were sunk. PQ 19 sailed in December, when weather and season were poor for air operations, and had light losses. Had the Soviets not insisted on the sailing, PQ 17 would have been held until late November or early December.

To have asked escort ships to engage a battle wagon in the company of a very heavy cruiser is madness. To ask that the sacrifice be made in the absence of a specific immediate tactical need is stupid. Add in a 2+ to 1 superiority in destroyers, and you have to ask why the convoy ever sailed in the long days of summer. Had no bombs ever found their mark, the German surface units would have brushed aside the escorts and decimated the convoy.

This issue surfaces every decade or so, and has even been the basis of court actions. But the facts remain the same. The convoy should have never sailed. And a country the size of the USSR should have never been in the position of having to rely on imported material to stop the Germans. This is just one more example of how badly soviet communism failed to serve the Soviet people. And trying to lay the blame on the British is just more rewriting of history, which is nothing new for the Soviets.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

If hollywood can't make a buck off it, it don't get no hollywood play.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, it is a screening of Pikul' book. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif So I have a reservation http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif - for non-russinas here, Pikul, IMHO is a cheap bestsellerist (hmm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif ) who can bloody ruin any historic event - but he is a popular in russia as Crighton (sp., sorry) in US.

Now, PQ-17 was a trully important WWII event, it could balance WWII one way or another and I would be realy sorry to see "Convoy PQ-17" follow Pikul' storyline.

It was an epic story of Heroism, Sacrifice, Cowardice and Betrail - two later terms go directly to Admiralty, sailors and officers of HM ships would fullfil their duty and save PQ-17. If only Lords have been so cowardly http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">the patriot? it's nothing new for hollywood, either.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Thermo, we can start argue again here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Yes, PQ-17 and PQ-18 were bloody dead important.
Russia was fighting Wermascht with her latest reserves.

So it was F..g Bloody important that those supplys come through. Or, according to you - I strongly disagree, Russia would never surrender - but those ships HAD TO COME TO MURMANSK AT ANY COST. Any loss of HM destroyers and cruisers were IRRELEVANT - That is F... B... what the Navy is for. But they COWARDLY retreated, because his Admiral BLOODY F..G cared more about His position in Admiralty then the Outcome of World War Two !!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ February 13, 2004, 23:48: Message edited by: oleg ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not the best, but definitely a classic.
I could not bother seeing the Last picture iteration.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Oh, Thermo, another historical fact that should surely hurt your stand that US won WWII fighting both Germany and USSR
- Tirpiz was forced to to return to its base after Soviet K-21 launched 4 torpedoes on it. Did it score ? - may be not, but Tirpitz returned to the base immediatly and never sailed again. But HM Admerals were so puked after Bismark affair that they decided to sacriface the whole convoy and save their "warships" - I put asterisk deliberatly because those HHS should lose that privelege endowned since Lord Nelson

Bloody Shame.

[ February 14, 2004, 00:04: Message edited by: oleg ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">[/QB][/quote]

Yes, sorry, I appologize. I remember a very nice video shop in Seattle (Scare Crow? sorry - around 52 street, north from UW campus ) where you can rent ANYTHING - no kidding -I was stoned just looking on the selection !!

I should post "in general release"

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">actually, it is a tough task for me too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
There are many - sometimes quite good but still "propaganda" movies and it is not easy to fish honest stuff. Check out stuff like "belorussky voksal", "oni srazhalis za rodinu", "a zori zdes tihii",
Or if you get it, teleserial "seventeen moments of spring" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, let’s not argue, let’s call it a debate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

To your first point, how would four destroyers have made a difference? The corvettes were little more than MTB’s without the torpedoes, and I doubt they could have survived long enough to even ram the Terpitz. And where was the Soviet Navy? IMHO, any allied ship that operated east of the North Cape in the summer of 42 did so at great risk. The western fleets were still sailing ships that were fitted out before airpower had advanced to the point of being accepted as a threat to war ships. They were ill equipped to fight off land based air in 1942.

To the second point, how is it that the USSR was in a position that one convoy of supplies would have made such a difference. And let’s face facts, the Soviet field armies that drove the Nazi bastards back to Berlin consumed more tonnage a week than was loaded on PQ 17. So to say that it would have made more than a temporary tactical difference would need a lot of supporting evidence.

Now before I say anything more, let me say that my animosity is directed at the Soviet government in general and at Stalin in this particular moment in history. The Russian people that I know personally are fine people. And I hold no animosity towards the people of Russia. But there are some facts that bring great weight to this debate.

Germany fielded the most skilled military organization that the world had ever known at the beginning of WW 2. Their understanding of maneuver exceeded that of any army in the world. This is due in great part to their understanding of why they failed in WW 1. And they were under the control of one of the four most evil Groups of men in modern history. The army of the USSR was something different. Its problems stem from the fact that it was controlled by one of the four most evil men of modern history. While Hitler and the Nazi’s killed more people in the years of Nazi rule, Stalin’s government killed many more, but over a longer period of time.

Also, I seem to recall that Hitler had a willing partner when he divided up Poland. This seems to be much ignored when WW 2 is debated. The USSR was a willing partner in the single event that triggered WW 2.

With Stalin’s track record up to that point, he is lucky that the west didn’t see the eastern front as a way of killing two birds with one stone. Aiding both sides just enough to ensure that they both shot their bolts.

And one more thing. What is this Great Patriotic War stuff? And what do the old Soviets call the invasion of Poland?

[ February 14, 2004, 01:32: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

nice shot of the catalina...

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Good post, Thermo. It will take me some time to reply in parts

But first, about Great Patriotic War. I think you read the Mein Kumpf and The Directive Barborosa. Then you should realise that the prime outcome of Hitler' victory would be the total anihilation of slavic people. Holocust was a tradegy but it could a small footnote compared to ~300 milions of dead Russians, Ukranians, Belorusians, etc. - all "inferior" races. So it was indeed The Great Patriotic War - the war for the very survivor of all us. I don't think people in the Weast, espicialy in US, who was practically untouched by WWII horrors appreciate how much it hurts us still... I was born many years after WWII and still my most vivid memories are my Family celebrations of May 9 and November 7 ,with all grownups tosting for "never ever another war"

So every time I read western media propoganda about Russian "aggression" I want to laugh and cry at the same time. What a nonsense ! Whatever we ever wanted is a secure peace. Hard to achive with Americam Imperialists building bases all around borders and dictating their will everywhere.

As to Stalin - I dispise him. He was an ars..l who killed millions and still failed to protect the country. He was a paranoic idiot directly responsible to the horrors of 41-42.

If only party listen to the lasr Lenin; letters in 1922 ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ February 14, 2004, 02:43: Message edited by: oleg ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Frankly, i don't know. i don't know whether Tirpitz will indeed attack the convoy. But I am very sure that if escorts stay with convoy, they would protect merchant ships from Luftwaffe and Kringsmarine. There would be no "Bloody Sunday of July 5", with all cruisers and destroyers around.

History does not know "if", but in my book, Royal Navy behaved like cowards. They left helpless concorts to the mercy of mercyless foe. It is like escorting a girl to the dark alley and then runing away at the first suspitios sound in the bushes.

Rightly or wrongly but <snipped> - I red once again the history of malta convoys and decided not to smear the reputation of the honorable institution on the basis of action of few scoundrels.

[ February 14, 2004, 03:05: Message edited by: oleg ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

In Seattle anyway, we have a few theatres which do show foreign films, we have an annual international film festival, and of course there are video stores (Scarecrow is good). I realize that foreign pickings are often woefully slim, while there's abundant Hollydreck, but I thought maybe you meant something else.

PvK

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

I for one would like to see more foreign films in US cinemas. I'm sure that there are many fine films that are missed by both sides.

As to the conduct of the WWII militaries and if they could have done better, sure they could have. BUT THAT IS HINDSIGHT!

What was done by ALL sides during that awful mess was incredible.

Here in the US, few know what the Russian people had to endure. The statistics I saw were amazing to me many years ago when I studied it.

I remember reading that the losses of men on the 'Eastern Front' were:
20 Million Russians and 2.5 Million Germans.
An amazing 8-1 ratio! This is over the whole war.
Think of what the ratio had to be at the start.
And the Germans LOST...

How did the Russians do it? Yes, they had help; but largely they DID fight with their own equipment. One place I wouldn't have liked to be was in the Russian infantry during 1941-1943.

IMO not enough note was made about the Eastern Front land war in the West. Just as I'm sure not much notice is shown in USSR about the Bombing campaign waged in the West.

You tend to ignore what you haven't experianced.
Simple human nature...

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is a problem with your numbers.
You put in it only the germans casualties, but dont get in all other nationalities (european volonteers, russians, italians) who came in URSS to fight versus communism.

From what I remember of "History of WW2" from Liddle Hart there was around 6 millions dead soldiers on the axis side. Remember until the very Last days of WW2, there was 1 million "russian" soldiers fighting on the side of germany.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not quite right.
Irretrievable human casualties of german allied armies in german-soviet battle-front (22.6.1941-9.5.1945):
Irretrievable casualties: 1468145.
|-Dead: 668163
|-Was taken prisoner: 799982
|- Retuned to home: 662229
Counted countries: Hungary, Italy, Romania, Finland, Slovakia.
You may check it yourself at http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/...er5_13_11.html using babelfish.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...p=ru_en&tt=url

Babelfish is really useful resource http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I cannot find yet data about the number of axis casualties on eastern from, but for germany it amounted more to the 3 500 000.

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/W/World-War-II.htm

Problem is, I cannot find the bielo-russian / georgians casualties while fighting on the german side, but it was massive but not really fit on the official history.

(no punt intended, just history)

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry for that link I provided. For some reason babelfish translate only 1/3 of document.
About German casualties: Eastern Front (22.6.1941-9.5.1945)
Total: 7181.1 thousands
|-Dead: 3604.8
|-Was taken prisoner: 3576.3
+ 1 591 125 taken prisoner after 9.5.1941 so total casualties = 8772,2 thousands.

Searching for information about national legions

Aha. 25000 Georgians - part of Turkic Legion.
70000 Byelorussians - most of them (47000) served as "Hilfswillige" (voluntary assistant) in occupied territories.
Where was no massive deaths amongst them, most part of all legioners gave up.

[ February 14, 2004, 21:11: Message edited by: aiken ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Hi,

Thanks that we may check it ourselves, but to be honnest. My russin isn't that good lately http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But without kidding, very interesting discussion.

I agree with unknown Enemy, It is very hard to understand or imagine what the russian people had to endure.

I for myself life in the Netherlands (west of germany) That country was overrun by the Nazi's in only 4 days. And even I could see the damage they left, when I was 10 years old (35 years after the war ended)

So imagine how great the russian damage and disaster must be after 3 or 4 years of full scale war.

Intimidator (Frans)

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...p=ru_en&tt=url

Babelfish is really useful resource http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">20 Millions is an estimate of total casualties, including civilians. In Leningrad alone 900 000 civilians died during the siege because of hunger and cold. Many other ciites were bombed to 90% when bothe armies went back anf forth. For example, civilian casulties in Stalingrad are estimated 200 000. No one know for sure, a lot of people were evacuated but not all.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

First of all, although you may not hear about foreign films being available in the states, I know for a fact that they are. Suncoast Motion Picture has a few. I even bought a German film called Stalingrad, about the events there as seen through the eyes of the German troops. Very interesting film. I'm just glad I wasn't there. If this PQ-17 film ever makes it to the states in dvd form, I'll buy it.

Speaking of this PQ-17, I admit I know nothing about it. In my teen years, I was an avid reader when it came to WWII. I must have read everythig in my high school library on the subject. But I don't remember reading about this. It's a shame, though, that the escorts ran when they could have at least made a try at defending the convoy. But if I was the commander, and I saw the Tirpitz, I might run too. Hard to tell what one will do unless you're in that position.

But speaking of Russians and tragedy, there's an event that happened at the end of the war that should make some Russians ashamed. There was a passenger ship, whose name I can't remember, crammed full of over 10,000 fleeing Germans, mostly civilians. I can't recall which body of water it was, but the ship was either torpedoed or shelled, and sank, killing most of those 10,000. This is a tragedy far greater than the Titanic, yet no one ever talks about it. I've only seen a couple of references to it in some of those books I used to read.

[ February 16, 2004, 13:31: Message edited by: gregebowman ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">For the Allied, civilians ships were as much a target as military. In fact, civilian belongings that could (even barely) be used by military were deemed legitimate targets for all involved countries. It is only AFTER the end of WW2 that was developped this guilt about civilian casualties.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

It was Wilghelm Gustloff. Sank January 30, 1945, around 4 a.m. with the loss of more than 5000 lives.

Here is a short story: http://www.militaryhistoryOnline.com...mgustloff.aspx

But how could Marinescu knew it was passenger liner with 6000 refuges ? Complete darkeness, 4 am in winter, large enemy convoy in sight...

[ February 16, 2004, 16:16: Message edited by: oleg ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Oleg,

You don't have to justify the fact that they killed civilians.
A lot, and I mean A LOT, of mistakes where made in WOII at both sides.

As I told before I life in the Netherlands, in the city of Nymegen. 20 km south of Arnhem (Market garden !!)

The US. bombed Nymegen in 1944, because they thought it was the German town : Kleve
I can tell you they missed Kleve by 27 km !!

But lucky for us the town of Nymegen now posses a Square called : Square 1944 (is no joke)

Intimidator , (Frans)

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">For the Allied, civilians ships were as much a target as military. In fact, civilian belongings that could (even barely) be used by military were deemed legitimate targets for all involved countries. It is only AFTER the end of WW2 that was developped this guilt about civilian casualties. [/QB][/quote]

The firebombing of Dresden is a good example of that. The city was full of refugees, but it was firebombed almost out of existence. I don't think the city even had a strategic value. I think it was the policy to do anything that would destroy the morale of the German people.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden2.JPG

DRESDEN 1945

Rumours: ' The bombing took place at the end of the war, Germany was already beaten. The only reason for the bombing was to show the Soviets what the west was capable of: 100.000 deaths '

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Could you please just place a link to that picture with a warning.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Sorry, You are right.
Did not think of that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Intimidator,

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Not only did the Allies do that to Dresden, America was doing that on almost a daily basis in the Last stages of WWII on Japan. ONly when they figured that it would cost over a million Allied lives for an invasion did they decide to drop the bomb. Twice! Even though the thought of atomic war still frightens me (and anyone who has lived through the Cold War), I think it was the right decision. It got the Japanese to stop thinking about their code of Bushido and the Divine Wind, and settle for a surrender.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Here are some numbers with the source that provided them.
Hum, wait a minute.
Did I said it ?
....
Yes I did.
I said Numbers. Not humans, not soldiers or fathers, just numbers. Sometime, in the heat of a discussion, we forget what we are talking about : the death by violent means of millions of people.


# Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

* Military:
o Info. Please: 6,115,000 (all causes)
o Compton's: 6,750,000
o Keegan: 7,000,000
o Small & Singer: 7,500,000
o Eckhardt: 7,500,000
o Davies: 8,000,000 to 9,000,000
o Mazower: 3M POWs through starvation + 6.5M in battle = 9.5M
o Urlanis: 10,000,000
o Volkogonov: 10,000,000
o Ellis: 11,000,000
o Britannica: 11,000,000
o Encarta: 13,000,000
o Kinder: 13,600,000
o Wallechinsky: 13,600,000
o HarperCollins: 14,500,000
o 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 22M
o Steven Shabad
+ Sokolov's new calculations: 26.4M
+ Gorbachev's official est.: 8,668,000 Red Army dead
o MEDIAN: 10M
* Civilian:
o Compton's: 6M
o Ellis: 6,700,000
o Britannica: 7,000,000
o HarperCollins: 7,000,000
o Encarta: 7,000,000
o Kinder: 7,000,000
o Keegan: 7,000,000
o Eckhardt: 7,500,000
o Mazower: 10M
o Urlanis: 10,000,000
o Steven Shabad (citing Sokolov): 16.9M
o Davies: 16,000,000 to 19,000,000
o 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 18M
o MEDIAN: 7M
* Total:
o Compton's: 12.75M
o Keegan: 14M
o Eckhardt: 15M
o Ellis: 17.7M
o Britannica: 18M
o Mazower: 19.5M
o Encarta: 20M
o Messenger: 20M
o Urlanis: 20M
o Kinder: 20.6M
o HarperCollins: 21.5M
o Wallechinsky: 20-26M
o Davies: 24M to 28M
o Volkogonov, Dmitri, Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy (1991): 26-27M
o Hochschild: 27M
o 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 40M
o Steven Shabad
+ Sokolov's new calculations: 43.3M
+ Stalin's official public est.: 7M dead
+ Khrushchev's official est.: 20M
+ Gorbachev's official est.: 27M
o Barbarossa, the Axis and the Allies, by John Erickson and David Dilks: 49M (acc2 book review: Agence France Presse, 16 June 1994)
o MEDIAN: 20M

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

The fact is UE. It's a lot easier to think of it in numbers rather than human beings.

Intimidator,

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Hey guys, you are all missing a major point here. In an all out war like WW 2, civilians are legitimate targets. Civilians make the materials of war. Farmers contribute, wives contribute and a 15 year old can be expected to be under arms an two to three years. Any building can be used for shelter, and any city is a legitimate target. The destruction of the civilian infrastructure was as important as bombing transportation and industry.

Also, while the massive 1000 plane raids over Europe were very much a welcome propaganda tool, they were also the end result of pure economics. When you can produce enough bombers to overwhelm the local defenses, and then carpet bomb the whole urban area of a city, you win. You no longer need to hit a small target. And you no longer worry about a single hospital or school. You bomb them all and they get lost in the weight of the raid as a whole.

In a nut shell, governments do not make war, Nations make war. And as citizens, we are all libel for the actions of our nations. The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb, and they knew that the V5 (4?) was a few technical problems away from flying to the eastern seaboard of the US. The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it. Also, people tend to forget that England was done for by 1944-45. Two major wars in less than thirty years had gutted her manpower, and the people at home were very tired of war. The V1’s and V2’s had driven moral down to levels not seen since 1940-41, and the fiasco that was Market Garden had spent a vast portion of her offensive capability. Also there was the issue of supplying the troops on the continent, their maximum numbers were dependant on how many tons of supply that could be trucked to them from the few working docks on the coast.

Let’s look at a few points about how small the allied advantage could have been in the winter of 44-45. The allied armies had shot their bolts and were in need of extended re-supply and refit. The ground pounders were being rotated for rest and replaced with green troops. The allies had reached their limit as far as supplying troops at the front was concerned. Fuel was being allocated on tactical level. Only the air forces were still able to maintain the offensive, but winter is not good air weather in northern Europe. The Americans were trying to bury the actual casualty figures for their armored units. The Sherman’s were death traps, only the weight of their numbers and the ease with which they could be repaired made them viable. But crews were refusing to fight them against German armor. The English were very busy trying to eliminate V2 launch sites and were very much in defensive mode. Turning south to pinch off the bulge used up their reserves. And while Patton made one hell of a tactical redeployment to strike the southern side of the bulge, he ran the tracks and wheels off of his army in so doing. Then the Germans launched a second counter offensive. The allies had to be wondering just how beaten Germany was at that point.

Now what if the Nazis had developed the bomb? We knew they were close. What if they tested their first one on the Soviet armies in Poland? Then mounted the second on a V5 and dropped it on London? Or, what if the V2’s began to carry gas, what if the Soviets ran into clouds of nerve agent when they crossed into Germany? There was still a lot that could have gone wrong late in the war. And the Government of England was not completely stable. The people of England had been at war a very long time and were worn down by the weight of it. Were you in a position of authority at that time, would you have left 2500+ heavy bombers to chase trains and bomb factories here and there? Or would you have used them to cut the heart out of Germany’s rotting carcass? And let’s not forget that Germany had done the same to England early in the war. Not quite on the same scale, but thay had sent everything that would fly on more than one occasion. No, I don’t think the allies can be faulted for the bombings, to do so is just more of the revisionist liberal crap that is so popular these days. I think these people should take a moment and remember why they are free to have these heated debates on an open medium like the internet.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Thermodyne, I am afraid I have to strongly refute almost all of your points.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sort of.
Allied command started by bombing all known civilian infrastructures, but due to lack of results, switched to transportation and industry. The case of Dresden has no military justification. For an explanation of it, you should look for political reasons.
Source : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">False.
The goal of the air war was first to break the German into submission. Problem was that the bomber's precision was really bad until 1944. Due to navigation difficulty, they used to release their bombs in a 5 miles area from their targets ! In 1944, bombers started to use a new organisation and new navigation systems which reduced the area to 400 meters. So before 44, you would need hundred of bombers to destroy a single sheltered factory. That is why large towns were easier targets, but from 44, it really became a possibility to crush the German industry from the sky. And contrary to the popular belief, it was done by bombing the facilities not the towns
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Perret's Air War.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wrong.
German Nuclear research was deprived of resources because scientists could not assure the Nazi power that their work would lead to a weapon in a short time frame. Instead, resources were transferred to rocket and plane development.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">On a military point of view, the achievement of all V weapons is null. It was a terror weapon which failed in its objective to submit UK into peace. Even if hypothetical V3 were send on the US coast, it would not have changed anything, and would have also failed to break the will to fight of the US population. Rather the contrary. Did Pearl Harbor or 09/11 broke the will of US population ?
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Gilbert Martin's History of the Twentieth Century

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is the worst part of your post.
First, Market Garden : primary goal of it was to open the way to the Ruhr and break the German army on the western front. It failed. However, it achieved to generate huge attritions both in men and AFV to the Wermacht, while the allied had plenty of both. After Market Garden and Bulge offensive, Hitler was convinced the western allied were spend, and would be unable to mount another offensive for the year to come. A few weeks later Patton broke through the Siegfried Line in the south and Montgomery made a breakthought in the north, opening the way to the Ruhr. Supply has been a temporary problem. Never a critical one. In fact, supply has been the strongest strength of US army for the whole war.
About UK now :
UK suffered around 715 000 dead from WW1, and around 450 000 dead in WW2(including civilians). Compare this to the 1 800 000 dead Germans in WW1, then to the 5 500 000 dead of WW2 and you can start laughing at your “gutted manpower” statement.
For the “very tired of war”, the intended peace agreement was made public at Yalta : German capitulation without negotiations. And the UK population massively supported it. No one in UK was thinking of ending the war without Hitler's head on a pike. Even less when at Last, victory was in sight since the success of allied landing in Europe, surrender of Italy and the victory in Africa. We are not speaking about 1941 here, but about middle/end 1944.
Sources : For UK moral situation : any UK newspaper archive you like. Take your pick.
For casualties : Boris Urlanis' War and Populations.
Strategic situation : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Guderian's Achtung Panzer, Liddell Hart's The other side of the hill and Manstein's Lost Victories.

As a conclusion, you are completely off mark. End of 1944, the writing was on the wall, as all German generals knew. Germany never went near achieving a nuclear bomb. It is an Hollywood picture, not History. UK population never arrived near breaking point. It is a lie.
I recommend you to read Liddell's Hart books. He is probably the most respected WW2 historian. You may know that Blitzkrieg is the translation of “Lightning War”, expression created by Liddell Hart when he was advocating new strategies for AFV in the 30s. As a side note, he was not listened in UK, even less in France but Guderian had his strategy papers translated and applied to the German army.

[ February 18, 2004, 15:11: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And more liberals should use that freedom to stand up to leaders who use fear and lies to get their countries into wars for political and ideological gain like in Germany.

The problem with Germany was that there were too many fascists and not enough liberals - if you ask me. When I read stuff that some people write it makes me wonder if we are starting to have the same problem here in the U.S.

[ February 18, 2004, 18:46: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sort of.
Allied command started by bombing all known civilian infrastructures, but due to lack of results, switched to transportation and industry. The case of Dresden has no military justification. For an explanation of it, you should look for political reasons.
Source : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2

Quote:

1000 plane raids over Europe .. were also the end result of pure economics.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">False.
The goal of the air war was first to break the German into submission. Problem was that the bomber's precision was really bad until 1944. Due to navigation difficulty, they used to release their bombs in a 5 miles area from their targets ! In 1944, bombers started to use a new organisation and new navigation systems which reduced the area to 400 meters. So before 44, you would need hundred of bombers to destroy a single sheltered factory. That is why large towns were easier targets, but from 44, it really became a possibility to crush the German industry from the sky. And contrary to the popular belief, it was done by bombing the facilities not the towns
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Perret's Air War.

Quote:

The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wrong.
German Nuclear research was deprived of resources because scientists could not assure the Nazi power that their work would lead to a weapon in a short time frame. Instead, resources were transferred to rocket and plane development.

Quote:

V5 (4?) was a few technical problems away from flying to the eastern seaboard of the US

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">On a military point of view, the achievement of all V weapons is null. It was a terror weapon which failed in its objective to submit UK into peace. Even if hypothetical V3 were send on the US coast, it would not have changed anything, and would have also failed to break the will to fight of the US population. Rather the contrary. Did Pearl Harbor or 09/11 broke the will of US population ?
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Gilbert Martin's History of the Twentieth Century

Quote:

The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it. ............. The allies had to be wondering just how beaten Germany was at that point.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is the worst part of your post.
First, Market Garden : primary goal of it was to open the way to the Ruhr and break the German army on the western front. It failed. However, it achieved to generate huge attritions both in men and AFV to the Wermacht, while the allied had plenty of both. After Market Garden and Bulge offensive, Hitler was convinced the western allied were spend, and would be unable to mount another offensive for the year to come. A few weeks later Patton broke through the Siegfried Line in the south and Montgomery made a breakthought in the north, opening the way to the Ruhr. Supply has been a temporary problem. Never a critical one. In fact, supply has been the strongest strength of US army for the whole war.
About UK now :
UK suffered around 715 000 dead from WW1, and around 450 000 dead in WW2(including civilians). Compare this to the 1 800 000 dead Germans in WW1, then to the 5 500 000 dead of WW2 and you can start laughing at your “gutted manpower” statement.
For the “very tired of war”, the intended peace agreement was made public at Yalta : German capitulation without negotiations. And the UK population massively supported it. No one in UK was thinking of ending the war without Hitler's head on a pike. Even less when at Last, victory was in sight since the success of allied landing in Europe, surrender of Italy and the victory in Africa. We are not speaking about 1941 here, but about middle/end 1944.
Sources : For UK moral situation : any UK newspaper archive you like. Take your pick.
For casualties : Boris Urlanis' War and Populations.
Strategic situation : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Guderian's Achtung Panzer, Liddell Hart's The other side of the hill and Manstein's Lost Victories.

As a conclusion, you are completely off mark. End of 1944, the writing was on the wall, as all German generals knew. Germany never went near achieving a nuclear bomb. It is an Hollywood picture, not History. UK population never arrived near breaking point. It is a lie.
I recommend you to read Liddell's Hart books. He is probably the most respected WW2 historian. You may know that Blitzkrieg is the translation of “Lightning War”, expression created by Liddell Hart when he was advocating new strategies for AFV in the 30s. As a side note, he was not listened in UK, even less in France but Guderian had his strategy papers translated and applied to the German army. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No time for a detailed argument right now, I’m at work. But to start with, let’s suggest that you find a modern historian. Hart died in 70 (?) I think. And while he was an innovator of early armored tactics, he was not privy to the intelligence gathered on the German nuclear research program. Much of this has only come to light because of forced declassification here in the states. His work is also tainted by his dissatisfaction with the fame that those who cam later gathered by using his ideas. Also, he was never more than a lukewarm supporter of strategic bombing. Most armored theorists feel that the role of airpower should be focused on ground support. If you search Kings Collage for every record that Hart ever had access to, you will find no mention of German weapons grade Uranium production levels for 1944-45. But the US archives have been found to hold quit a lot of information now that the story of the Uranium’s capture has gone public.

Your comment on the bombers only supports my position. The early missions could not put the needed number of planes over the target to overwhelm the defenses. Strategic bombing in Europe was still evolving at the end of the war. The B29’s over Japan proved the theory further. Then the Bomb changed the game before the theory was ever fully mature. But the targets remained the same. Be it a fleet of B29s or a single SS18, the target is a major city. Sure today some weapons will be targeted on their counter parts in a first strike profile, but the majority of the weapons will fly to major cities.

On you use of the popular press as a source for measuring the moral of the British people, I would remind you that the press was on a very tight leash during the war, and I would suggest that you read the personal correspondence between Churchill and FDR. These letters paint a much different picture.

And Market Garden was pure stupidity. Map table maneuver at its worst. And a waste of fuel that would have been better used elsewhere. Illusions of North African Grandeur.

[ February 18, 2004, 18:49: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Just read this...all I can say is WHOA!

Will refute later.

At work now


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Good. I alway welcome a good argument.

However, I will wait before arguing further that you cite a few authors to support your views.

Note I sometime have doubts about which authors can be trusted. I am still trying to find the name of the author of a recent book about D Day. Some parts of the book were ok, but the strategic situation painted was something like "if it didn't work, the russians would have made a separate peace.". That is why I am quite cautious about authors, waiting to see how they fare against each others.

Speaking of which, Liddell Hart has indeed some detractors (Montgomery first above all). However, turn the way you want but you'll still have one of the most (if not the most) respected WW2 historian. His "History of WW2" and "The Other side of the Hill" are classics.
Another author to consider seriously is Boris Urlanis. Serious work indeed.

Waiting for your answer.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Unk_E,

No, I think we're on the same page, we probably came at it from different directions (me from a PolSci/PolTheory/Just War Theory perspective) and you from a practical perspective. I was responding to Thermo's orignal post, not yours.

But, on second thought, I think I'm going to pass becuase I just noted another comment: " I don't think the allies can be faulted for the bombings, to do so is just more of the revisionist liberal crap that is so popular these days. I think these people should take a moment and remember why they are free to have these heated debates on an open medium like the internet."

When statements like this get thrown out there debate, almost by definition, becomes impossible.

And, I am tired of political debates in gaming forums. I get too worked up and it taints my later Posts.

Ta,

Alarik

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Ok here is a direct quote for you:

"I reported for the first time orally to the Fuehrer that if these aerial attacks continued, a rapid end of the war might be the consequence."
Speer to Survey Interrogators on the Hamburg attacks.


Source is the US post WW2 bombing survey documents.

Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
 

Hey can he not quote himself. As he has a good knowledge of the events of WW2. And most books on WW2 are based on opinion at that time. It is the nature of writting about the most complex event in human history. An event where most of the knowledge behind the decisions are still locked away.