Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire WW2 Russian vet. recalls atrocities by his soldiers -

England declared war on Germany in 1939. Germany declared war on the U.S.A. in 1941 as a result of America sending arms to both England and Russia.

Look folks, we a our own in house historian!

It's fairly basic stuff.

...and you still can't get it right. Germany declared war on us because Hitler thought that Japan (his ally) had injured us so badly at Pearl Harbor that he could complete his conquests before we could rearm. If it was because we sold goods to Great Britain and Russia, he would've done it a lot sooner.

Ok , thanks for the informative responses .
Kenneth66

I'm aware of the official narrative.

So you like your made-up one better?

Interesting book.

https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/0307405168

Stupid MF's are allowed to survive only so long.

Is that America's epitaph?

Evolution.

All you show is your own arrogance and ignorance. This picture is evidence of mass murder and nothing else. Your speak of “blitzkrieg”. Reminds me of the kind of garbage one reads on Wikipedia.

Blitzkrieg...that’s cute. Did Tom brokaw teach you that?

If you read my post above, Blitzkrieg had nothing to do with the photo.

It was a concept developed by a number of people and first used in Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. It exists. If you think otherwise you are an idiot.

Yeah it “is a method of warfare where the attacker spearheads an offensive using a rapid overwhelming force concentration that may consist of armoured and motorised or mechanised infantry formations with close air support, with the intent to break through the opponent's line of defence by short, fast, and powerful attacks and then dislocates the defenders, using speed and surprise to encircle them with the help of air superiority.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg It's on Wikipedia and countless other sources. I've read all of the German General memoirs. It exists.


Destroying hundreds of industrial cities of an enemy reduces their ability to make war, especially when they are diverting half of their formerly superior air force from their major theatre of attack and then start losing.

Not me. But you like Nazis. They're cool to you. Congrats on your Nazi love.

No destruction of bridges and infrastructure as well?

I've read far more on WWII than you ever have.

This is just a sliver in my library. Some actually use that term in the title of the books.

At the time AGC panzers were ordered south by
Hitler (July directive #33), they are still some
220 miles out from Moscow with an unprotected
right flank already hundreds of miles long..to
continue to Moscow would have meant a longer
exposed right flank some 400+ miles long.

The other big problem was logistics/supply which
was already considerably lacking past the point
of Smolensk...even when Hitler resumed the push to
Moscow some weeks later(Sept.directive #35 'Typhoon')
with a strengthened AGC , the serious supply issue had not
been resolved with German troops freezing their asses off
without warm clothing among many other things they lacked
for a winter offensive...some supplies still being held
up as far west as Poland due to rail log jams.

Hitler's brief redirection of AGC 2nd panzer south was not
a waste , since Guderian was part of the pincer that bagged
some 700,000 Soviets -
Kiev 41' is Largest encirclement in history with military
observers from UK and USA believing the Soviets were
going to collapse and give Hitler victory in the war.

Additionally AGS with the Soviet resistance challenges it
faced was considerably lagging behind compared to the
ground AGC had made in its initial advance on Moscow
up to July/Aug.
For AGC to have continued on its initial push to Moscow it would
have had to do it with an already depleated force (victories around
Smolensk came at a price) in need of refit and re-supply with dwindling
supplies/logistics already looming over them and would need to keep
sacrificing it's own assets from its eastward thrust to protect its
increasingly long right flank - which brings into question how much
strength AGC would have had to enter, clear and hold Moscow.

Two other major issues were that German intel on Soviet
reserves was flawed as were seasonal meteorological
predictions for the Eastern offensive.

If one thinks it was tough for the battle units to advance
in the circumstances , think about the supply units that had
to run back & forth from the rail heads to the advancing army.

AGC logistical bounds June -Dec. 1941







The 6th Army was battered and not well supplied prior
to Stalingrad and neither were other German armies in
the east well supplied..The Eastern campaign was from
outset designed to be a rapid and short one due to pre-
invasion calculations clearly showing they didn't have
resources for a prolonged conflict ...so would be interesting
to know how they would have managed to drag the war out
for years.

Germany calculated they had sufficient supplies/logistics
to go about 800 km into Russia , but really stretched the
limits by going 1600 km into the Caucasus.

You have no idea what I've read...your a legend in your own mind. Its a shame you didn't learn anything from those books you so proudly show. Its sounds like you got your info from a 3rd grade social studies book.

You refer to blitzkrieg...proof your speaking out of your ass. Thats a western media made term that sounded sexy for the newspapers of the day. Hence the germans referred to it in quotations or by frankly saying "the so called" in their post war interviews. Show it to me in german prior to 1940 smart guy.

What your referring to is the "war of movement" or Bewegungskrieg...standard prussian doctrine. But id guess you knew that...or so you will claim

Since you like to read i have a title you should check out

JoeBob, my post was a thought prompted by yours and was not intended as a refutation of anything you said or to accuse you of revisionism or of being one of those Leftists. I am sorry if it came across that way. I thought that beginning my post with "In some ways this is true" made this clear, but apparently not. I simply think that the further removed we get from historical events, the more opportunities there are for interpretive shenanigans and we have to be careful who we listen to. There are a lot of guys on this forum whose take on such events are well worth listening to; that's why I was reading this thread to begin with.

I am curious, though, as to why you referred to the post WWII events as a creation myth?

Again, sorry for making it look like I thought you are some kind of left-winger.