Performance of the British army in WW2 - how good?

[Lexicus]

I am sorry if I think that most of what happened to the USSR in WW2 was brought on by themselves.

Well sure, Stalin was fool enough to trust Hitler not to attack first, and the gobbling up of Eastern Europe as a buffer against the actual German attack backfired magnificently, but I don't think that's how you mean this, somehow...

 

[Dachs]

Of course yeah, who could forget Midway of all places. The important info about Midway is that the Jap fleet was heavily damaged. You can see how America prevails on the high seas also, which illustrates some more versatility. The Pacific War is pretty interesting to think about because I always viewed it as an unconventional War. Though we put the bulk of our Army in Europe, because we had adopted a Europe first policy, we still managed to be effective in the South Pacific. You can be that efficient if you take care of your people and have officers in command who know what they are doing. I think it was a really tough fight, and the Japs did the best they could to make up for what they lacked, when compared to US capabilities. It was just a different fight all together from Europe. Germany had better equipment and understanding of modern war, the Japanese on the other hand were tenaciously mean, for that was their biggest strength. I have heard people say that the Japanese fought to the death, where the Germans did not, but that isn't necessarily true. Depending on the unit, Germany had divisions that fought to almost destruction, or to the point where they were rendered combat ineffective.

The environment in that part of the world is horrible though, particularly in places like New Guinea and Southern Philippines. All of the smaller islands to the East that were hot as hell with Japs dug into just about every piece of high ground. So you have the brutal mentality of your opponent, god awful heat coupled with ecosystems that preyed upon human health. Yeah, not very fun at all.

I believe that it was a very important campaign, the South Pacific. This region of the world is so screwed up, with the exception of Australia. How many countries down there have even adopted Freedom yet? Look at Indonesia and how Islamic it is, unless of course you're in to that sort of thing. I really look at the Pacific War as chapter 1, in a book that has at least 3 chapters. Each War fought in the Orient was based on one all encompassing goal.

That's some awfully racially charged language there, chief.

What red elk was trying to say, and what apparently went over your head, is that random, remote geography that doesn't seem to mean anything on its own can take on incredible importance in a war. The Battle of Midway was the turning point of the entire war in the Pacific and it happened next to a tiny atoll with very little value to anybody in the middle of the ocean. The two largest navies in the world tore each other to pieces around Guadalcanal for a year despite that island being a sideshow according to both Washington and Tokyo. It took on a new kind of importance once it was fought over.

So yeah, Stalingrad was not an incredibly important location before 1942 and few people would've pinpointed it as the site of one of the most desperate and bloody battles in human history. There were some intrinsic reasons to fight over it, like the industrial zone or its position at a Volga River crossing, but nothing that would've suggested the apocalyptic struggle that actually happened. And even the German plans for BLAU didn't designate Stalingrad as the focus of the campaign. It's just that the way the battle developed made Stalingrad what it eventually became.

But none of the men fighting there, for either the Axis or the USSR, would've been there if it wasn't part of the Nazi effort to seize a decisive advantage in the war on what Hitler believed was Germany's most critical front. There were no Stalingrads in the West. Clearly, the Nazis assigned a great deal of meaning to their Eastern Front.

"arguably started" indeed. The British, Russian, and Ottoman Empires were not among the original belligerents. I cannot justify pointing the finger at any of them.

Golly, that's a very old post.

And, if you look at the context, it was clearly meant as a joke. Hence the smiley when talking about the "real" prize being the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire in Asia.

The joke was meant to have a great deal of truth to it (because that always makes the funniest jokes...even if I don't necessarily make the funniest jokes). I certainly did believe then, and still believe now, that one of the prime factors behind the outbreak of war in 1914 was the tsarist government's imperialist objectives, along with the willingness of the British and French governments to endorse or tolerate them in order to keep their Russian alliance. Owen and Mannerheim did a good job of talking about more proximate causes, as well, like the early Russian mobilization.

In the context of the immediate discussion at the time, I felt it was worth pointing out the large overseas commitment that the British Empire's military undertook in the First World War, which was relevant to their combat effectiveness. Mannerheim made a joke about how armies in Iraq weren't really worth the same as armies on the Somme, because that's where the war would be decided. That's undoubtedly true. Victory in Western Europe was what enabled the Entente powers to win the war. But the First World War was a global war, and the global commitments of the British and imperial armies were important, and Britain did have important imperial objectives in the Middle East.

And also I like tweaking Mannerheim, because that's what we do to each other.

ETA: rather fitting that my 14,000th post is a shot-from-the-hip WWI jump-in that will almost certainly be met with a Dachs wall of text. Eh, c'est la prix PC+1

have some self-confidence, man, I've been gone for years and you're still afraid of my shadow for no good reason

So now you are comparing the world of Native Americans with that of Europe. That's real good. You do realize that Natives still have a substantial amount of territory that was allocated to them by the government, right? And by the way, don't pretend like you actually care anyway, especially if you are Russian.

Why shouldn't people compare the mass deaths suffered by the indigenous population of the Americas to the mass deaths suffered by the population of Europe? The Nazis certainly did. Hitler explicitly connected them in speeches: he wanted to slaughter the population of Eastern Europe to make it open for Germans to settle, just as white Europeans were able to settle most of the Americas. While the genocide of indigenous Americans wasn't nearly as explicit, intentional, and state-sanctioned as the Holocaust was, the two campaigns had the same fundamental goal.

 

[red_elk]

So now you are comparing the world of Native Americans with that of Europe.

No, I'm not comparing the "worlds". You suggested that Nazis were inspired by something. That could as well be the genocide of Native Americans.
In fact, there are quite obvious similarities between these two cases.

Yeah, the Soviets weren't gonna do anything.

Well, US didn't manage to defeat even Vietnam and Korea. I doubt their army was as formidable as you are describing.

 

[red_elk]

What red elk was trying to say, and what apparently went over your head, is that random, remote geography that doesn't seem to mean anything on its own can take on incredible importance in a war. The Battle of Midway was the turning point of the entire war in the Pacific and it happened next to a tiny atoll with very little value to anybody in the middle of the ocean. The two largest navies in the world tore each other to pieces around Guadalcanal for a year despite that island being a sideshow according to both Washington and Tokyo. It took on a new kind of importance once it was fought over.

Yep. That's precisely what I meant.

 

[Jackson2626]

That's some awfully racially charged language there, chief.

What red elk was trying to say, and what apparently went over your head, is that random, remote geography that doesn't seem to mean anything on its own can take on incredible importance in a war. The Battle of Midway was the turning point of the entire war in the Pacific and it happened next to a tiny atoll with very little value to anybody in the middle of the ocean. The two largest navies in the world tore each other to pieces around Guadalcanal for a year despite that island being a sideshow according to both Washington and Tokyo. It took on a new kind of importance once it was fought over.

So yeah, Stalingrad was not an incredibly important location before 1942 and few people would've pinpointed it as the site of one of the most desperate and bloody battles in human history. There were some intrinsic reasons to fight over it, like the industrial zone or its position at a Volga River crossing, but nothing that would've suggested the apocalyptic struggle that actually happened. And even the German plans for BLAU didn't designate Stalingrad as the focus of the campaign. It's just that the way the battle developed made Stalingrad what it eventually became.

But none of the men fighting there, for either the Axis or the USSR, would've been there if it wasn't part of the Nazi effort to seize a decisive advantage in the war on what Hitler believed was Germany's most critical front. There were no Stalingrads in the West. Clearly, the Nazis assigned a great deal of meaning to their Eastern Front.

Golly, that's a very old post.

And, if you look at the context, it was clearly meant as a joke. Hence the smiley when talking about the "real" prize being the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire in Asia.

The joke was meant to have a great deal of truth to it (because that always makes the funniest jokes...even if I don't necessarily make the funniest jokes). I certainly did believe then, and still believe now, that one of the prime factors behind the outbreak of war in 1914 was the tsarist government's imperialist objectives, along with the willingness of the British and French governments to endorse or tolerate them in order to keep their Russian alliance. Owen and Mannerheim did a good job of talking about more proximate causes, as well, like the early Russian mobilization.

In the context of the immediate discussion at the time, I felt it was worth pointing out the large overseas commitment that the British Empire's military undertook in the First World War, which was relevant to their combat effectiveness. Mannerheim made a joke about how armies in Iraq weren't really worth the same as armies on the Somme, because that's where the war would be decided. That's undoubtedly true. Victory in Western Europe was what enabled the Entente powers to win the war. But the First World War was a global war, and the global commitments of the British and imperial armies were important, and Britain did have important imperial objectives in the Middle East.

And also I like tweaking Mannerheim, because that's what we do to each other.

have some self-confidence, man, I've been gone for years and you're still afraid of my shadow for no good reason

Why shouldn't people compare the mass deaths suffered by the indigenous population of the Americas to the mass deaths suffered by the population of Europe? The Nazis certainly did. Hitler explicitly connected them in speeches: he wanted to slaughter the population of Eastern Europe to make it open for Germans to settle, just as white Europeans were able to settle most of the Americas. While the genocide of indigenous Americans wasn't nearly as explicit, intentional, and state-sanctioned as the Holocaust was, the two campaigns had the same fundamental goal.

Please do not message me again, I cannot debate with you.

I will say it one more time and that's it because you are starting to drive me crazy. It was no where near the most important priority for the Nazis to liquidate the East and settle it. The West was of more necessity to them because that is where their real empire was. If you are trying to compare naval battles with land battles then I must be wasting my time on this debate.

No, I'm not comparing the "worlds". You suggested that Nazis were inspired by something. That could as well be the genocide of Native Americans.
In fact, there are quite obvious similarities between these two cases.


Well, US didn't manage to defeat even Vietnam and Korea. I doubt their army was as formidable as you are describing.

HAHA! We lost nothing on the battlefield. I would say that Korea was mostly a success as you can see the difference between North and South today. In Vietnam we basically gave up on it, and we felt that our point had been made clear.

 

[Ajidica]

In Vietnam we basically gave up on it, and we felt that our point had been made clear.

What point was that?
We will spray chemicals on you in the name of freedom?
We will drop more bombs on you than we did on Nazi Germany?
We will prop up corrupt and unpopular governments filled with the cronies of the French Union because we preferred aristocrats over nationalists?

EDITS:

FWIW North Korea had a higher standard of living than South Korea until the late 70s/early 80s when they finally ditched their militarist dictator who was overly fond of shooting students. (And changes in US finance and import laws made an the "Asian tiger" economies function.) Completely anecdotal but my uncle was in the marines in South Korea for a while in the early 70s and thought the place was a bigger dump than Vietnam.

I would say that Korea was mostly a success as you can see the difference between North and South today.

The three things the Nazis desperately needed were oil, rare minerals, and wheat. All of which are found in abundance in Eastern Europe and not so much in Western Europe. Western European agriculture relied heavily on imports from the Americans (Argentina in particular). One of the major concerns facing the Nazis was that German agriculture simply didn't produce enough food internally to feed Germany. The Low Countries were almost entirely dependent on imports for food - hence why the Low Countries were literally starving at the end of the war. French agriculture was notoriously poor and, surprise surprise, heavily dependent on foreign imports.

Again, I highly recommend you read Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction for a better of how the Nazi economy functioned and the crippling shortages affecting it.

 

[Jackson2626]

What point was that?
We will spray chemicals on you in the name of freedom?
We will drop more bombs on you than we did on Nazi Germany?
We will prop up corrupt and unpopular governments filled with the cronies of the French Union because we preferred aristocrats over nationalists?

EDITS:



The three things the Nazis desperately needed were oil, rare minerals, and wheat. All of which are found in abundance in Eastern Europe and not so much in Western Europe. Western European agriculture relied heavily on imports from the Americans (Argentina in particular). One of the major concerns facing the Nazis was that German agriculture simply didn't produce enough food internally to feed Germany. The Low Countries were almost entirely dependent on imports for food - hence why the Low Countries were literally starving at the end of the war. French agriculture was notoriously poor and, surprise surprise, heavily dependent on foreign imports.

Again, I highly recommend you read Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction for a better of how the Nazi economy functioned and the crippling shortages affecting it.

What point was that?
We will spray chemicals on you in the name of freedom?
We will drop more bombs on you than we did on Nazi Germany?
We will prop up corrupt and unpopular governments filled with the cronies of the French Union because we preferred aristocrats over nationalists?

EDITS:



The three things the Nazis desperately needed were oil, rare minerals, and wheat. All of which are found in abundance in Eastern Europe and not so much in Western Europe. Western European agriculture relied heavily on imports from the Americans (Argentina in particular). One of the major concerns facing the Nazis was that German agriculture simply didn't produce enough food internally to feed Germany. The Low Countries were almost entirely dependent on imports for food - hence why the Low Countries were literally starving at the end of the war. French agriculture was notoriously poor and, surprise surprise, heavily dependent on foreign imports.

Again, I highly recommend you read Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction for a better of how the Nazi economy functioned and the crippling shortages affecting it.

Yeah right, because that region of the world was like Candyland before the big bad Americans showed up and ruined the amazing progress they were making. Give me a break with that 1967 Summer of Love crap about the birds and the bees. About how we were being so cruel and horrible over there and how those people never did anything to anyone. I mean isn't Burma still in a Civil War? These people don't do themselves any favors, in fact they are usually quite mean, even to each other.

 

[red_elk]

It was no where near the most important priority for the Nazis to liquidate the East and settle it. The West was of more necessity to them because that is where their real empire was.

Several people explained to you why it wasn't. Reasserting your claim won't make it true.

In Vietnam we basically gave up on it, and we felt that our point had been made clear.

Yes, you gave up on it and lost the war. Also, you destroyed their country and killed hundreds of thousands civilians.
Not sure what US point was, but Vietnamese made their point quite clear - they will defend their country against agressor, at all costs.

Yeah right, because that region of the world was like Candyland before the big bad Americans showed up and ruined the amazing progress they were making.

It wasn't candyland, but surely bombs and napalm didn't make it prettier too.
By the way, Vietnam made quite a good progress after war.

 

[red_elk]

Well sure, Stalin was fool enough to trust Hitler not to attack first

Stalin did many things wrong, but he didn't trust Hitler, it is a common misconception. He was well aware about German plans to attack, and USSR initiated massive military buildup in 1939-1941. The problem with exact date of attack was that the Germans postponed it a few times and it wasn't clear whether they are going to attack in June. USSR started partial mobilization in May, under pretext of "big training exercises", but declaring full mobilization would most likely provoke immediate attack.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Well, US didn't manage to defeat even Vietnam and Korea. I doubt their army was as formidable as you are describing.

The US military when going into the Korean Conflict was in a particularly bad state. Post war budget cuts & large-scale draw downs had sapped most strength of the U.S. military, the Marine Corps in particular were hit with massive scale-backs. Most of the Marine rifle platoons of the 5th Marine Regiment, which landed in Inchon, and the 1st Provisional Brigade, which took its place in Pusan, where made up of boys straight out of boot camp or activated reservists. The average Marine in Korea was far less trained or prepared for war than their WWII or Vietnam counterpart. The main Army units available at the start of the war, the 1st Cavalry, 24th, & 25th Divisions of the us 8th Army, were in Japan and were basically used up in the act of defending the Pusan Perimeter.

The U.S. basically had to just throw anything it could get its hands on into Korea. It can't be understated how unlikely the Western Powers though war was going to be in a post Hiroshima age.

HAHA! We lost nothing on the battlefield. I would say that Korea was mostly a success as you can see the difference between North and South today. In Vietnam we basically gave up on it, and we felt that our point had been made clear.

The U.S. won in Korea because we didn't have any actual goals outside of "saving South Korea". In a way Korea was a lot like the 1st Gulf War. In both, the U.N. forces were acting under the leadership of a U.S. fresh off victory in a major conflict (WWII/Cold War) who in response to those victories had begun to draw down its military strength. Both U.N. forces were operating on a very specific purview of defending & liberating country X (South Korea/Saudi Arabia-Kuwait), and while both would have loved to remove the governments of the aggressors (Kim Il-sung/Saddam) but where unable to accomplish it in the time given them and didn't have the international backing to continue the war to accomplish that or any other goal.

Desert Storm at least had months of prep time to allow the U.N. to launch offensive operations, where the U.N. in Korea was reacting to attack.

It was no where near the most important priority for the Nazis to liquidate the East and settle it. The West was of more necessity to them because that is where their real empire was.

Why are you still holding to this untenable line of "reasoning" when it has been thoroughly debunked both on this thread and by the historical profession in general?

Its ok to change your opinion on something as new quality material is made available to you. On this very thread, for example, looking back my understanding of the Ottoman involvement in the Great War has changed drastically since my comments from 2013, largely due to the Great War becoming a particular area of interest to me, thus driving me to study and research more.

If you are trying to compare naval battles with land battles then I must be wasting my time on this debate.

The Pacific War can quiet honestly be described as one of the most unique wars in history because of the incredible distances it covered and the size of the fleets which fought it. It is not illogical to consider massive fleet actions in similar terms as army movements, particularly in the Pacific where fleets were fighting over control over very specific spaces, just like an army would.

But I think you might be missing the meta point; often pivotal battles occur in places with little or no strategic importance because the course of warfare tends to be dictated by the course of events rather than direct independent action. Take Gettysburg for example, everybody from modern military analyst to ole Lost Causers agree that the town of Gettysburg itself wasn't of any importance, and indeed the ground as occupied on July 1 makes it a battle Lee shouldn't have wanted to fight there. However, the largest battle of the Civil War was fought there due to decisions not made on June 30th-July 1st, but in the weeks leading up (the battles in Virginia, the roads which the Confederate and Union armies chose to take northward, the decision of Stuart to bring along a wagon-train of loot north and depriving Lee of a cavalry screen, etc. etc. etc.)

 

[red_elk]

The U.S. won in Korea because we didn't have any actual goals outside of "saving South Korea".

I thought you were Finnish. Don't know why

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah right, because that region of the world was like Candyland before the big bad Americans showed up and ruined the amazing progress they were making. Give me a break with that 1967 Summer of Love crap about the birds and the bees. About how we were being so cruel and horrible over there and how those people never did anything to anyone. I mean isn't Burma still in a Civil War? These people don't do themselves any favors, in fact they are usually quite mean, even to each other.

Where did I ever say anything like that? Indochina was full of problems long before we decided to carry on a sordid little French colonial war.
It took a catastrophic defeat and unrest at home, but eventually the French learned that Vietnam was not "winnable" as the French public understood "winning". It took us many long, bloody, expensive, and divisive years before we learned the same thing.

 

[Jackson2626]

Yeah right, because that region of the world was like Candyland before the big bad Americans showed up and ruined the amazing progress they were making. Give me a break with that 1967 Summer of Love crap about the birds and the bees. About how we were being so cruel and horrible over there and how those people never did anything to anyone. I mean isn't Burma still in a Civil War? These people don't do themselves any favors, in fact they are usually quite mean, even to each other.

Several people explained to you why it wasn't. Reasserting your claim won't make it true.


Yes, you gave up on it and lost the war. Also, you destroyed their country and killed hundreds of thousands civilians.
Not sure what US point was, but Vietnamese made their point quite clear - they will defend their country against agressor, at all costs.


It wasn't candyland, but surely bombs and napalm didn't make it prettier too.
By the way, Vietnam made quite a good progress after war.

Nothing was explained that made any sense or disproved my point in any way. I'll provide you with another important point about the Western Front. Germany put around 100,000 paratroopers in Normandy in 1944, and if anybody understands what I am talking about then you will know that Fallshrimjager were the best in the whole German military, even better than SS. It's amazing to me that people think of North Africa as being a sideshow without thinking about how many motorized divisions were in the Afrika Korps. I think the West is thought of in a different light because it wasn't a <snip> like the East was. As horrible as it was for the people on the ground, the rules of War stilled applied.

I will retract much of what I said if someone can present a coherent reason why the Eastern recesses of the European continent were of such vital importance.

Moderator Action: You were previously warned in this thread due to inappropriate language. Please stop it. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ajidica]

I will retract much of what I said if someone can present a coherent reason why the Eastern recesses of the European continent were of such vital importance.

I mean, if you really want I can dig out The Wages of Destruction and type out all the facts and summarize all the charts illustrating the crippling resource shortages Nazi Germany was under even after they took France and the Low Countries* due to the British naval blockade. The Soviet Union was the only possible source for the oil, grain, and rare metals the Nazi economy was so lacking. However, given how blithely you dismissed those points I have tried to make repeatedly and basically ignoring Dach's post, I'm not entirely sure why I should go to the trouble of laying it all out.

*Indeed, it made the Nazi resource situation even worse as France and the Low Countries were more dependent on imports than Germany was.

 

[red_elk]

I will retract much of what I said if...

No, you won't.

...if someone can present a coherent reason why the Eastern recesses of the European continent were of such vital importance.

Shortage of strategic resources. And 300 Red Army divisions.
Is it really so difficult to understand?

 

[Jackson2626]

I mean, if you really want I can dig out The Wages of Destruction and type out all the facts and summarize all the charts illustrating the crippling resource shortages Nazi Germany was under even after they took France and the Low Countries* due to the British naval blockade. The Soviet Union was the only possible source for the oil, grain, and rare metals the Nazi economy was so lacking. However, given how blithely you dismissed those points I have tried to make repeatedly and basically ignoring Dach's post, I'm not entirely sure why I should go to the trouble of laying it all out.

*Indeed, it made the Nazi resource situation even worse as France and the Low Countries were more dependent on imports than Germany was.

No, you won't.


Shortage of strategic resources. And 300 Red Army divisions.
Is it really so difficult to understand?

"Shortage of strategic resources".... That's the best you can come up with? Any military strategist would call you insane. By all means keep clinging to your lies and fabrications, whatever makes you feel better. You realize how frustrating it is when the Russians claim they inflicted 80% percent of all "German" casualties, not Axis, they claim "German" casualties. Not only is that complete bs, but its also something that pisses us off because you are claiming false Laurels for yourselves. You have spun a web of lies that truly perverts what was really happening, like you people do in every single War that ever took place. You try to make it into something that you want it to be.

 

[Jackson2626]

"Shortage of strategic resources".... That's the best you can come up with? Any military strategist would call you insane. By all means keep clinging to your lies and fabrications, whatever makes you feel better. You realize how frustrating it is when the Russians claim they inflicted 80% percent of all "German" casualties, not Axis, they claim "German" casualties. Not only is that complete bs, but its also something that pisses us off because you are claiming false Laurels for yourselves. You have spun a web of lies that truly perverts what was really happening, like you people do in every single War that ever took place. You try to make it into something that you want it to be.

The message being pushed is that "Germans" killed 6,000,000 Jews as well as millions of others they didn't want. Like no other country was making it happen, it was just the fault of Germany. Factually, this is not the case at all, and in fact there were many of different nationalities(Not Germany) that actively participated, and in some cases were a catalyst for much of the killings. Believe when I say the East was as much Romania and Hungary's war as it was Germany's.

 

[red_elk]

"Shortage of strategic resources".... That's the best you can come up with?

Well, it is simple enough argument and you are unable to refute it.
There were other good arguments (read Ajidica, Dachs and others), but judging by your replies, you didn't understand them.

You realize how frustrating it is when the Russians claim they inflicted 80% percent of all "German" casualties, not Axis, they claim "German" casualties.

Truth can be frustrating. I can only suggest you to get past denial stage and learn to accept it.
USSR (not only Russians) took the most part of the struggle against Nazi Germany and deserves the most credit for defeating it.
Other Allied powers did a lot of job too.

 

[innonimatu]

Not only do we not believe you, Jackson, some of us recognized your style not as ignorance that can be fixed but as hopeless trolling.

It's still useful to debunk outrageous claims, lest some uninformed reader later falls for them. That's done, and you're just repeating yourself. This is just sad to read.

 

[Ajidica]

"Shortage of strategic resources".... That's the best you can come up with?

When armaments factories are going cold in the winter of 1939-1940 due to a lack of coal, steel, and copper, that's called a resource shortage and was only overcome by slashing the steel allocations for every branch except ammunition and the Luftwaffe.
Agriculture in Germany was still primarily unmechanized peasant smallholders, and when the men got called up for military service, it raised the specter of total agricultural collapse in German planners that caused the revolution on 1918. To meet the manpower needs the Nazi government tried to import approximately a tenth of the Polish population from the General Government to serve as slave seasonal workers. Even then they barely got through the winter by reducing rations to Polish civilians to approximately 600 calories a day. The oil issue facing Germany is well known and is not controversial in the slightest. Even explicitly battle-focused books on the subject, such as the one I have on the Battle of Kursk, highlight how the lack of gas hindered -if not completely prevented- the Nazi ability to redeploy their panzer divisions and engage in a war of movement with the Soviets.

Any military strategist would call you insane.

The Nazis (mainly the generals) never really grasped the importance of logistics, especially oil. The much vaunted Panzer divisions can't do jack when they run out of gas.

By all means keep clinging to your lies and fabrications, whatever makes you feel better. You realize how frustrating it is when the Russians claim they inflicted 80% percent of all "German" casualties, not Axis, they claim "German" casualties.

According to the German High Command, up until 1945 Eastern Front was responsible for the death of just under 70% of all German soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II#OKW_War_Diary
I can't really be bothered to find the numbers for the last months of Nazi Germany, but with the Wehrmacht in ruin and collapsing on every front, I can't imagine the numbers would change that much.

Not only is that complete bs, but its also something that pisses us off because you are claiming false Laurels for yourselves.

First, who is "us"?
Second, what "false laurels" am I claiming?
I'm American, Dachs is American, Mannerheim is American, and Lexicus is American. Innonimatu is Portuguese I'm pretty sure and red_elk is Russian. The involvement of the Red Army and its massive efforts were instrumental in defeating the Nazis in 1945. Could the United Nations have defeated the Nazis without the Soviet Union? Yes, but it would have taken longer and been bloodier, leaving Europe a burned out wreck ripe for Great Comrade Stalin to launch his planned for general offensive into Europe. (Soviet documents indicate Stalin planned a massive war in Europe for roughly 1946.)

You have spun a web of lies that truly perverts what was really happening, like you people do in every single War that ever took place. You try to make it into something that you want it to be.

I'm curious, what historical cabal am I a part of? Furthermore, what historians (I'm even accepting authors of pop-history) support your claims?

EDIT:

The message being pushed is that "Germans" killed 6,000,000 Jews as well as millions of others they didn't want. Like no other country was making it happen, it was just the fault of Germany. Factually, this is not the case at all, and in fact there were many of different nationalities(Not Germany) that actively participated, and in some cases were a catalyst for much of the killings.

It's complicated. Rampant anti-Semitism was common in Eastern Europe during the interwar period. Many Poles, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians were positively eager to tell the Nazis who all the Jews were and get them out of their villages and rounding them up in ghettos. I don't believe there is evidence to suggest those people wanted to see Jews and the other groups (Roma, disabled, homosexuals, various Christian denominations) murdered on an industrial scale. The leap from "stick them in ghettos" to "exterminate an entire race" is a pretty big one, and the leap for that rests on the Nazis. The Hungarians only had their weird late-war flirtation with concentration camps once the Final Solution was in full swing.