German newsreels of Heer Infantrymen, Waffen SS grenadiers and Fallschirmjaegers (Paratroopers) taken during the hedgerow fighting during the battle of Normandy in summer 1944.
@PilgrimGB yes, but when do you exactly mean? WW1 as france fought on one side with england, russia and the USA? Or do you mean the WW2 as France fought on one side with england russia the USA(and several other strong nations) but lost in a single fight (supported by the english army) against germany in a few weeks after germany rushed poland in round 2 weeks?
@Florek112 russians sent prisoners to their gulaks (is something like our old KZ s. Not an advantage ! Russians raped a lot, destroyed a lot. Im thankful that america did best it could to save at least our western cities from those east-humans.
@atam255 :D:D haha ..no.. I think the russians were barely never a true military force. They lost a few years before the WW2 against poland, which has been defeated by germany in 2 weeks. In WW2 itself they lost 20 million men while germany lost round 4 million against all enemy parties. Russia lost a war against afghanistan. they had to burn down their cities( also moskow) to defend theirselves against france...against france!
@davrotc And do I say they were worse? My point of wiev is simple - they were superior in the tactical scale. I just wanted to clear the numbers. Because some guys are telling me the losses were 3 to 1, or 6 to 1, and if You want to laugh, watch comments under music video, titled: - Sabaton - Stalingrad. Guy there is claiming that Germans had 600 000 soldiers on the whole Eastern front, most of them died of cold, and he's laughing at me, when I give him sources...
@Florek112 Look, either way you view it, the Russians took more casualties than the Germans in the terms of millions. That in itself should lead to the conclusion that the Germans were the most qualitatively superior troops in the war, let alone the Eastern Front.
@davrotc Honestly I think, that You're wrong counting them. Because it's not Soviet fault that Germans were treating prisoners that way and most of them died. Soviets could also let more prisoners die. And they captured very high number of prisoners in 44'-45', also in massive encirclements. Only Stalingrad and pre-43' prisoners had high death-rate. But most of POW's taken in Operation Bagration, Kurland, Eastern Prussia, Crimea, came back home. Why count it as a Soviet disadvantage?
@Florek112 The numbers included count prisoners who died in Russian and German captivity. I would rationalize counting them as KIAs as most Russians who surrendered did so under massive encirclement (ex. Bialystock Pocket, Kiev Pocket, 3rd Battle of Kharkov) and would have been wiped out anyway. Same goes for the Germans in their situations (such as Stalingrad, Korsun pocket, Operation Bagration).
@PilgrimGB yes, but when do you exactly mean? WW1 as france fought on one side with england, russia and the USA? Or do you mean the WW2 as France fought on one side with england russia the USA(and several other strong nations) but lost in a single fight (supported by the english army) against germany in a few weeks after germany rushed poland in round 2 weeks?
IRoXXI 1 day ago
@IRoXXI
Oh yeah France who Germany lost a war against.
PilgrimGB 2 days ago
hey guys stop talking about russians and americans,both are pussyes compared to germans
TheGitakTV 2 days ago
@Florek112 russians sent prisoners to their gulaks (is something like our old KZ s. Not an advantage ! Russians raped a lot, destroyed a lot. Im thankful that america did best it could to save at least our western cities from those east-humans.
Firefightergtx1000 4 days ago
@IRoXXI Calm dawn, child, we will talk about it in 10 years time.
atam255 6 days ago
@atam255 :D:D haha ..no.. I think the russians were barely never a true military force. They lost a few years before the WW2 against poland, which has been defeated by germany in 2 weeks. In WW2 itself they lost 20 million men while germany lost round 4 million against all enemy parties. Russia lost a war against afghanistan. they had to burn down their cities( also moskow) to defend theirselves against france...against france!
IRoXXI 6 days ago
@davrotc And do I say they were worse? My point of wiev is simple - they were superior in the tactical scale. I just wanted to clear the numbers. Because some guys are telling me the losses were 3 to 1, or 6 to 1, and if You want to laugh, watch comments under music video, titled: - Sabaton - Stalingrad. Guy there is claiming that Germans had 600 000 soldiers on the whole Eastern front, most of them died of cold, and he's laughing at me, when I give him sources...
Florek112 1 week ago
@Florek112 Look, either way you view it, the Russians took more casualties than the Germans in the terms of millions. That in itself should lead to the conclusion that the Germans were the most qualitatively superior troops in the war, let alone the Eastern Front.
davrotc 1 week ago
@davrotc Honestly I think, that You're wrong counting them. Because it's not Soviet fault that Germans were treating prisoners that way and most of them died. Soviets could also let more prisoners die. And they captured very high number of prisoners in 44'-45', also in massive encirclements. Only Stalingrad and pre-43' prisoners had high death-rate. But most of POW's taken in Operation Bagration, Kurland, Eastern Prussia, Crimea, came back home. Why count it as a Soviet disadvantage?
Florek112 1 week ago
@Florek112 The numbers included count prisoners who died in Russian and German captivity. I would rationalize counting them as KIAs as most Russians who surrendered did so under massive encirclement (ex. Bialystock Pocket, Kiev Pocket, 3rd Battle of Kharkov) and would have been wiped out anyway. Same goes for the Germans in their situations (such as Stalingrad, Korsun pocket, Operation Bagration).
davrotc 1 week ago