Barbarossa vs D-Day, which was bigger
Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core
-
massina_nz
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:12 am
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Barbarossa vs D-Day, which was bigger
A local tv channel is re-running 'Band of Brothers' at the moment. They are trumpetting that D-Day was the largest military operation ever. My intuitive feeling was that Barbarossa was larger, involving more men. But that D-Day was more complex in it's co-ordination requirements between each of the tactical arms. If D-Day had failed it would have also failed in a major way, and put back the Allied effort in the West significantly.
-
massina_nz
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:12 am
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Comparing the Allies facing Barbarossa to the Axis facing D-Day, I feel a lot more dread with D-Day. With Barbarossa you can still cling to the hope that you'll weather the storm and turn the tide of battle in your favor, but for the Axis it's often the beginning of the end. This is all generally speaking however - there are games where I love the challenge of holding off the Allies in the West while trying to maintain the upper hand against Soviet Russia, and there are games where I dread Barbarossa, because I know that my opponent is going to wipe out or trap all my forward positions.massina_nz wrote:So I'm wondering from a CEAW perpsective, which fills you with more dread or excitement, Barbarossa or D-Day?
Barbarossa was undoubtedly a hugely bigger operation. D-Day was, and is, the largest seaborne Invasion ever done. With the way the World has changed, we will never see its like again. Or a War on the scale of WW2. And to both, I say thank God.
There is an old saying that the Second World War was won with Russian blood and American money. While of course an oversimplification, in essence, it is true.
This is not to, in any way, denigrate the contributions of others. Without the intelligence, intransigence, and fortitude, of Churchill, the World would be a very different place. And it is my view, 600 young men of Fighter Command saved us from a new Dark Age.
The trouble with the History Channel for instance, is that it dumbs History down. In large part, it almost says the only War of consequence was the second. And it overplays the United States's role. Although not as badly as Hollywood; where outright lies are portrayed as truth in the name of being commercial.
Truth is a much more powerful tool. Students, amateur or not, appreciate that sacrifices and heroism have made us what we are. By all players - on all sides.
There is an old saying that the Second World War was won with Russian blood and American money. While of course an oversimplification, in essence, it is true.
This is not to, in any way, denigrate the contributions of others. Without the intelligence, intransigence, and fortitude, of Churchill, the World would be a very different place. And it is my view, 600 young men of Fighter Command saved us from a new Dark Age.
The trouble with the History Channel for instance, is that it dumbs History down. In large part, it almost says the only War of consequence was the second. And it overplays the United States's role. Although not as badly as Hollywood; where outright lies are portrayed as truth in the name of being commercial.
Truth is a much more powerful tool. Students, amateur or not, appreciate that sacrifices and heroism have made us what we are. By all players - on all sides.
Not mention how history is 'attached' to us by media interpretation.
A couple of simple examples being;
The German's get it from the English speaking world - don't mention the war and spare a moment for the Dutch, who just can't win - heroic defense here, your own SS division there!
no wonder the cultural tension is high between the two.
Pretty soon popular culture will asign the breaking of enigma to the US.
The victors only get to write their version, the real history is written by generations of commercial media.
er, and so it has been throughout all history (with apologies to Heroditus, you can't be 'wrong' when you invent it)
A couple of simple examples being;
The German's get it from the English speaking world - don't mention the war and spare a moment for the Dutch, who just can't win - heroic defense here, your own SS division there!
no wonder the cultural tension is high between the two.
Pretty soon popular culture will asign the breaking of enigma to the US.
The victors only get to write their version, the real history is written by generations of commercial media.
er, and so it has been throughout all history (with apologies to Heroditus, you can't be 'wrong' when you invent it)
I hate to break it to you, but there's already been an American film that portrayed Enigma breaking as an American achievement.richardsd wrote:Not mention how history is 'attached' to us by media interpretation.
A couple of simple examples being;
The German's get it from the English speaking world - don't mention the war and spare a moment for the Dutch, who just can't win - heroic defense here, your own SS division there!
no wonder the cultural tension is high between the two.
Pretty soon popular culture will asign the breaking of enigma to the US.
The victors only get to write their version, the real history is written by generations of commercial media.
er, and so it has been throughout all history (with apologies to Heroditus, you can't be 'wrong' when you invent it)