I've been recently watching a new History Channel series about WWII called 'The War of the Century'.  8)

It goes into quite some detail about many aspects. The latest installment dealt with the Russian campaign and more specifically the battle for and seige of Moscow.

The official figure quoted in the series regarding how close the Germans came was 40 kilometres (about 25 miles). Very close indeed! 

They gave some figures and info dealing with Russian POW's that I wasn't aware of.
Apparently Hitler decided, after something like 1.5 million Russians were captured during the first few weeks, that they would 'do away with them' by a kind of 'systematic neglect'. This included starvation, disease and freezing etc.

They quoted a figure of 4 million Russian POW's dying in German captivity. I don't recall if that was for the entire war, or just up till Moscow!

There were interviews from veterans of both sides. Stories of terrible barbarism on both sides and also very touching tales of individual acts of kindness among enemies.
One German was under orders to 'summarily' shoot all Russian 'commisars'. he came across one and rather than 'murder him' (as he put it), he directed him back to his own troops, as he knew if he took him in, someone would shoot him and he would probably in trouble anyway.

Anyway, the amount of Russian prisoners taken by the Germans was absolutely staggering. Blitzkreig definitely worked very well in the oonset. I think it was more the winter that affected the Blitzkreig tactic more than the Russians retreating.
The reasons why Blitzkreig worked in surrounding 'pockets' of thousands, was that they couldn't retret fast enough to get away from the fast advancing armour and 'aerial' artillery.

After having seen this series, I still believe that had the Germans had only 3 or 4 weeks more of decent weather, the result in the East would have been very different.
I think the numbers and manufacturing capacity of tyhe Russians, against the supply problems and manufacturing limitations of the Germans would still have seen a Russian victory, but it would have taken much longer (I don't dare hazard a guess at how long - I don't know how people can calculate how muich loger these thing could have lasted, had one thing or another happened). 

Also I still believe that the story in the West would have been quite different for a while, had the Germans captured and held onto the oil fields in the Caucus'. 

Quote:


Somewhat astray from the original topic, but where did you come by this information, pray tell?

Quote:

Quote:

Read this. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,500631,00.html

Please remember that war itself is the atrocity. It can & does de-humanise ordinary decent people of all nations.

I see no benefit in trying to turn this thread into a flame war. This would only serve to get it removed. PDQ

The reason I posted that link instead of many others I could have chosen is that it mentions British troops involved in atrocities. Also that it's about an old documentary (the article is dated 2001) shown on British TV so many people living in the UK will have seen it. I'm not sure it would have been shown in the US. The whole point is that no nation is exempt from this. It would be very naive to believe otherwise.

PS. It's worth remembering that the victors get to write the history books. The truth takes longer to emerge & sometimes never does. One side's hero could easily be the other's war criminal.

PPS. If you want the unbiased American perspective on this subject read this. http://www.skalman.nu/history/books-review-pacificrevisted.htm
Quote:


The same is true of all nations involved in WWI & WWII & most other conflicts before & since. The enemy soldier is often portrayed as brutal & subhuman in order to give the opposing troops & the general public an incentive to fight.

Hey Woody, how come Britain and America get a captal 'B' and 'A' but australia only gets a small 'a' ???

Eh???    Eh????

I know it's only a typo, mate!  - Someone has to try to inject a little levity into this thread, in our nice new History Forum. 

With reagrd to the atrocities business. Unfortunately, WWII is often portrayed in light of the terrible atrocities that occured in all theatres both in civilain and military circles.

That's sad, because albeit very true that this conflict was marred by terrible acts on all sides, I'll say for the 100th time, I feel that it was the last War in which their seemed to be a clear moral 'purpose' and justification for the involvemnet of the Allies. At least in terms of popular opinion. People were fighting for the very freedom of the world, both in the Pacific and in Europe.
And there was certainly no doubt as to who were the aggressors.

This is of course, all History now, good and proper, long gone. I don;t doubt that British, American and Australian troops did aweful things to the enemy and sometimes there own.
I recall the film, "Saving Private Ryan", when they reach the top of the hill and there are Germans surrendering, they are summarily shot, and the perpertrators laugh about it (Cpt Miller, the nicest man in the world, looks dissappointed but does nothing about it!).
These men have just gone thru the hell of Omaha. They have seen their friends and countrymen blown literally to peices. They have seen young boys mown down mercilessly, over a stretch of sand. Of course they wabted to kill the 'bastards' who were responsible for starting this whole thing!
On the other hand, the Germans were following orders and defending their country, whether right or wrong, that's all they were doing.
Another GI yells out "Hold your fire! Let 'em burn!" when the Germans jump out of the pillbox on fire.

It's terrible that otherwise normal people are reduced to this sort of inhumanity in war, but it happens and no-one is really immune, if they are pushed to there particular limit.

I saw those two 'scenes' in Private Ryan and I didn't think any less of Americans because of the portrayal, because common sense dictates that they are but a couple of examples of the things many on all sides did.

The real guilty ones are the "How I won the war - by John Wayne" movies that gave the world the original impression of what war was 'supposedly' like for the 'good guys' (not Mr Wayne himself, but the producers and directors etc).

Quote:


What I realize (and it's been for more than a few of my 40+ years now), is that it's more the time and place you're living in that determines the version of history you're exposed to.

Most rational people know that much of history, particularly earlier history, is full of half-truths, quarter-truths, exaggeration, outright fabrication, etc., etc. (without the mass-media that we have today.....who knows what the hell really happened!)....(and not that today's paparazzi always gets it right either, especially much of that tabloid crap!!).

Quote:


The John Wayne war movies served as 'healthy propaganda' for Americans during WWII; they've long since been regarded as anachronistic by most Americans (at least above the age of 10 or so). On the subject of 'The Duke', I'll never forget seeing some old WWII doco about the Pacific war....I think it was about Guadalcanal. It featured interviews with surviving veterans of the battle. One old vet recounted how after the battle, John Wayne showed up; apparently just to make a patriotic, morale-boosting type appearance. This old vet said that the troops instantly began to boo and razz him! Even at that time, most of those soldiers had seen his movies, and after experiencing the real hell of war themselves, they regarded Mr. Wayne's movies as pure BS!

I agree with hagar and Redwing on both their last posts.

Hopefully, because of the releasing of documents that until quite recently, show the Allies as 'not quite so heroic and wholesome' in certain instances, and of course the likes of Movies like 'Private Ryan, Thin red Line, Pearl harbour (to a lesser degree), people old and young are beginning to see that war is nothing like it has been portrayed for decades by the media (especially television and cinema).

I only hope that this realisation, if it sinks in at all, will affect our future leaders to an extent where they won't be so ready to commit the lives of young men (and sometimes innocent civilians) to solve a problem.

Although i am mindful of the fact, that whilever tghere are the likes of your Hitlers, Mussolinis and I suppose your Bin Ladens and Husseins, there are always going to be times when the only option left is 'force'.
This is the sad part. there are some in this world who love and/or thrive on conflict, power and confrontation in the extreme. Whilst ever they have acces the the powerful positions, there will be these difficult times.