Cult Icon

Yes, you have covered where I live in both those pics .  

I do have French ancestry, but in the Midwest German and Scandinavian are probably more common than French.  My French ancestry is mixed with Native American, as well, and I think that's fairly common up here - the French fur traders traded with the Native Americans in Canada and in the northern US, so it wasn't uncommon for them to marry each other.

 

I do have French ancestry, but in the Midwest German and Scandinavian are probably more common than French.  My French ancestry is mixed with Native American, as well, and I think that's fairly common up here - the French fur traders traded with the Native Americans in Canada and in the northern US, so it wasn't uncommon for them to marry each other.

I agree to say there's surely more Germans and Scandinavians descendants living in the Midwest now than French, since the French who was living there before 1755 were almost all expropriated and deported by the English before the Independance of the USA...And yes, Native Americans tribes chosen to deal more with French, i think mainly because we were more open and respectuous of their cultures, and less authoritarian than the English, obviously lol

Chateaubriand wrote some interesting things about this time in his book Voyage en Amerique

>> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1978/jul/20/what-chateaubriand-saw/

Really interesting that you say the French were more accepting of other cultures than the English - I've observed that same thing.  I haven't heard others talk about it, but it's obvious to me - in the US, those with French ancestry often have mixed French-Native American ancestry, like me, or French-African American ancestry (people in Louisiana, particularly New Orleans).

^ French are really mixed, and this since the origins. Romans, Gauls, Barbarians, and so on since

And in addition, Olivier de Kersauson, one of my favorite writer, wrote something who says something like: "Les Anglais arrivent sur une île, la colonise, et lorsqu'ils en repartent tout le monde là-bas est habillé comme un anglais. Les Français eux, arrivent sur une île, la colonise, et lorsqu'ils en repartent ils sont eux-mêmes habillés aux couleurs des gens de là-bas". lol 

That's why i think Americans and French are so close since the beginning.

Really interesting.  Sorry to hijack your thread, Cult!

Also, jj, I don't find the model in your set very pretty 

Yes, sorry Cult But your thread is such a cool café now

Yeah, i tried to make this new set with Léa Seydoux yesterday i put back Blanca  

I was waiting a few new good pictures from her to to do a new one but with the fashionweek starting next week, i prefer to keep this one for now

lol .... wrong thread

^^

It's okay.  Talk as you want here.  My thread has been dead for at least two years...   I like activity on my thread.

JJ3, I wish popular modeling had a lot more girls with giant bust and serious curves.  Sadly only Charlotte/Kate Upton are around.

Kate to me is a little tragic- she could look like that all the time but she chooses not to! The rest are excuses.

Nimue Smit is one of my top ten models. 

I really can't say that I have a definitive top 5.  I think I have a top 20 of all time though.  I tend to be interested in a couple models for a time, and then rotate my interest based on availability of new and old (and unseen) content.

Kate at this time, photo 2 and 3, looked perfect, even better than Candice...Good thing she's back in the modeling stuff now! Her hair are less lighter now though...she need to work out a bit and she will be perfect again

 

Thanks for Nimue Smit, i didin't know that actually i just picked up the gif through the net because i found it cool lol Nimue looks nice, she's like a mix between Eniko and Olivia Ross i find

 

Thanks for the trick, i will take a look

 

And, do you have some favorite models ? I mean, what is you TOP5 for exemple ?

This is my models list. I leave it in my profile.  What are your very top models from your list?

The bolded is the best of the best for me.  Out of all the models, the one that I most want to marry is Edita. LOL.

Out of curiosity, do you have any serious interest in WW2 history or is it just casual? what topics?

Ondaria Hardin
Lauren de Graaf
Vita Sidorkina
Farah Holt
Tanya Katysheva
Bree Smith
McKenna Berkley
Alena Blohm
Hollie-May Saker
Alexandra Martynova
Crista Cober
Natalie Jayne Roser
Irene Hiemstra
Joanna Halpin
Julia Frauche
Hanalei Reponty
Lais Navarro
Samantha Gradoville
Candice Swanepoel

Eniko Mihalik
Maritza Veer
Rianne ten Haken
Charlene Hogger
Terese Pagh Teglgaard
Stef Van Der Laan
Devon Windsor
Lauren Mellor
Camille Rowe
Clara Alonso
Nadine Leopold
Lucette Van Beek
Samantha Ahrens
Auguste Abeliunaite
Samantha Basalari
Martha Hunt
Hedvig Palm
Erin Heatherton
Anna Christine Speckhart
Hailey Clauson
Milous Sluis
Sasha Luss
Nastya Zhidkikh
Natalia Siodmiak
Nanna Breinbjerg
Nadejda Savcova
Sanna Backstrom
Myf Shephard
Vlada Roslyakova
Madison Headrick
Anouck Sanders
Hana Jirickova
Catherine McNeil
Elyse Taylor
Karlie Kloss
Nastya Zhidkikh
Amanda Nørgaard
Aksana Samy
Daphne Krooneman
Catherine McNeil
AnaBeatriz Barros
Nimue Smit
Kendra Spears
Marlijn Hoek
Caroline Brasch Nielsen
Valentina Zeliaeva
Daria Werbowy
Barbara Fialho
Polina Kouklina
Sun Feifei
Liu Wen
Flavia de Oliveira
Lais ribeiro
Freja Beha Erichsen
Magdalena Frackowiak
Behati Prinsloo
Anne Vyalitsyna
Kati Nescher
Anna Selezneva
Julia Stegner
Hilary Rhoda
Sui He
Elsa Hosk
Constance Jablonski
Maryna Linchuk
Tori Praver
Frida Gustavsson
Marloes Horst
Monika Jagaciak
Karmen Pedaru
Toni Garrn
Hana Soukupova
Edita Vilkeviciute
Fabiana Semprebom
Martha Streck
Dionni Tabbers
Mini Aden
Caroline Winberg
Isabeli fontana
Abbey Lee Kershaw
Ginta Lapina
Aline Weber
Masha Novoselova
Carmen Kass
Lara Stone
Lucia Dvorska
Kasia Struss
Dewi Driegen
Valerie van der graff
Anja Rubik
Aurelia Gliwski
Cato Von Ee
Katsia Zingarevich
Anna Maria Jagodzinska
Arizona Muse

Yeah, my topic know the same probleme I think not enough members know about this section of BZ.

Well i don't know if Genevieve Morton is very popular, but she has a great body just like you like them it seems

Here a small preview

You should give her a try !

About Kate, i agree with you, but though, the fappening screwed her the last year, after the pics we saw, honestly, that was quite tragic...

Anyway, Kate in SI, this year, or later, it's when she wants ahaha

Absolutely, a top5 is too small, even for me, sometimes i really like some models, and then with times, i forgot them, though, they stay in my top...

I'm sad for exemple that Natasha Barnard is not anymore...she was has a lovely face, and a great body, she was quite different i always found,

SA models have all something differents i always found!

Your list is very interesting...So well, here mine, the bolded are the best of the best for me too:

This forum was once very active and had a core group of posters that posted like friendly human beings capable of instant conversation.  The members section and the general sections were actually very active.  This was in 2010.  I had heard from others that it was even more social beforehand.  My personal belief is that the sharp collapse of communication quality has to do with the fact that the lion's share of the posters are now killing dead time with their mobiles and not using computers.  Over time, the more numerous drives out the less numbered.

Hmmph  I was thinking of the ultra striking type- eg. the old ashley richardson was one of them- just the ultra buxom body type, giant bust.  It's nice to have some more diversity-  that's why I root for Charlotte Mckinney even though I can't look at her face...I like Natasha Barnard and she should be in more things.  Valerie van der graff types should be more numerous (tall, healthy thin, big bust) Gene Morton- IMHO is not busty enough for what I'm thinking of!!!  

I have seen kate being used for cosmetic lines in department stores.

 

Yeah, my topic know the same probleme I think not enough members know about this section of BZ.

 

Well i don't know if Genevieve Morton is very popular, but she has a great body just like you like them it seems

Here a small preview

You should give her a try !

 

About Kate, i agree with you, but though, the fappening screwed her the last year, after the pics we saw, honestly, that was quite tragic...

Anyway, Kate in SI, this year, or later, it's when she wants ahaha

 

Absolutely, a top5 is too small, even for me, sometimes i really like some models, and then with times, i forgot them, though, they stay in my top...

I'm sad for exemple that Natasha Barnard is not anymore...she was has a lovely face, and a great body, she was quite different i always found,

SA models have all something differents i always found!

 

Your list is very interesting...So well, here mine, the bolded are the best of the best for me too:

 

I did a top 10 finally, those are my favs i think, i try to find news from them at least once a week...

In a side note, i'm kinda proud that i created Niamh's topic here on BZ, she will become a big name soon i feel, i hope at least!

 

Yea, I forget my best of all time girls too (like AnaBB)- in fact most of them aren't working much.  The current models that I check are Farah Holt , Bree Smith (who does almost nothing), Hedvig, Vita, Nadine, etc.  I often save VS stuff simply because they produce so much- not due to quality sadly (although among the VS girls, I like Martha and Monika the most).

Photographed by Graham Dunn for Free People

JJ3,

I am considered "hardcore hobbyist" with this stuff.  I have been studying ww2 since I was a pre-teen, completed formal coursework, and have a library that's over 500. I have read about a 100 myself and have referenced the rest.  I am part of the historical research community and have relationships that author.  Although I do not aspire such things, I can hold my own in certain areas that I specialize in.  (you can see this in my book list)

I am largely interested in generalship, pure combat and organization, particularly the Red Army and the Wehrmacht.  My knowledge of the US Army is decent but not nearly as vast.  Outside of the East,  I know 1944, west front.  I particularly gravitate towards maneuver based armored warfare and combined arms & operational/unit histories.

Very early on, I recognized the overwhelming significance of the eastern front and how it completely dwarfed the Western Allied fronts.  This was juxtaposed with the poor level of interest, knowledge, and acknowledgement in the western nations (including scholars).  I think right now is a great time for WW2 history as many publishers like Helion are more and more releasing translated Russian and German works into the english language, which will help increase the flow of information.  I have noticed that the interest in the Eastern front has been rising slowly but steadily- which gives the belief that the quality will improve throughout my life.

Out of curiosity, do you have any serious interest in WW2 history or is it just casual? what topics?

 

I really love History, i should leanrned that at the University instead of Art i feel And i also love Geo and sociology too, and geopolitics nowadays...

But with my poor englis, sometimes it's hard to express precisely my opinion

Though, of course WW2 is one of my favorite era...i would say, 1939-1989, the Totalitarism era...Cold war is really interesting too...

I feel, depending the country in which we are living, we have differents views about the WW2 and the following events.

USSR History interest me a lot nowadays, because the Cold War, Historiians was't all very fair with Russian effort and sacrifice during their Great Patriotic War.

Many people think that WW2 started when Hitler invaded Poland, but according Antony Beevor in his last book about the WW2, it clearly appear now that the war stated in Mongolia, or northern China when Japan tryed to invad USSR by the south, Joukov was there, with the best Sovietics armored divisions. That's why i feel, the first days of barbarossa was so easy for the Wehrmacht...

Also, it's interesting to know why France was out of game that much easily. Not a lot of ppl know that french army lost 100'000 soldier in one month of war...the same number than during the worse days and months of the WW1, in La Somme for exemple...But the reasons why France asked the armistice, has so many reasons and factors too.

Barbarossa was never easy and the german army and their axis allies sacrificed their most highly mobile, supplied, and maneuver/offensively trained field forces that they ever used in the war by Dec, 1941-   By summer 1942 they could only supply one (instead of 3) army groups for the offensive and after that Germany and her allies were no longer a strategic factor in WW2.  Three authors have very good material on this: Stahel, Glantz, Frieser. Also, the Halder/von Bock war diaries and the german division unit histories/memoirs have much tactical content. 

 

With the use of tank divisions, the soviets were not competitive on the battlefield until around November 1942 when they released their next generation tank corps in the soviet winter counteroffensive 1942-1943.  Like the British, it took a long time for them to develop the complex capability to fight toe to toe with the much more highly developed panzer divisions.  Before that, the mass commitment of soviet armor at the operational level generally lead to weak results.  By the fall/winter of 1943, the soviets rose to be very competitive and the german panzertruppen and infantry forces were in terminal decline.

  The rise and fall of the german army and the "stumbling, then rise of the red army" are magnificent subjects- a major area of my hobby.

I am currently exchanging with a russian researcher and historian.  We like to discover "forgotten battles" and have been researching/reading about combat west of Kiev Oct 1943 - April 1944.

eg.- to show you the things I do- these are my last notes from reading the superb Zhitomir-Berdichev, West of Kiev: 24 Dec 1943-31 Jan 1944 :

 

Jan 6, 1944 , 1.PzA, 4.PzA

Jan 6: 13.AK and 48.PzK gets no relief and the 1UKF continues to attack them. Balck complains to Raus but gets no sympathy- the counterattack is to take place without further delay. Raus and his COS give him a fall-back position in case he is defeated. This doesn't work either. Soon after, a soviet rifle division, lead by 40 tanks quickly puts 1.SSLAH in threat of encirclement due to a breach. Raus authorizes the withdrawal of 1.SSLAH. 2.SSDR and 340. ID (KG) attacks anyway and is quickly stopped cold, ending the counterattack.

-96.ID, arriving from AGN was to reinforce 59.AK.

-13.AK's 68.ID, 340.ID, 208.ID ordered to consolidate into a Korps-Abteilung. 16.Pz pulled out of the left (north) wing gap and moved to the right wing.

-101.Jager has come in. reinforcement: Tank destroyer battalion (mot.) 471 assigned to 1.PzA.

-Panzerzug 62 is allocated to 1.PzA (armored train).

-3.PzK- with only the battle worn 17.Pz (plus 506 Tiger) and battle worn

6.Pz assembled- runs into problems. 6.Pz moves up, and is blocked by a formidable soviet anti-tank and artillery belt.

17.Pz(plus 506 Tiger) is attacked by 150 tanks of the 1TA and is forced to make a fighting withdrawal as 1TA streams south. 1TA also splits 6.Pz and 17.Pz from each other. Hube is aware that 1TA also seeks to take the " DG IV"- the highway to Uman.

Breith orders that the two divisions pivot, counterattack, and link up.

Hube intends on re-deploying 7.AK into offensive mode, which will take some time. This is the 34.ID, 82.ID, and 198.ID.

-Manstein has a one hour meeting with Raus. He acknowledges that 4.PzA's situation was difficult and that he had " intended to use the 1.PzA to strike the 1UKF east of Vinnitsa, and at the same time, use the 46.PzK to strike towards Shepetovka, hoping to stabilize the situation on both wings at the same time." This, due to the circumstances (crisis atmosphere, aggressive soviet movements, partial commitment of reinforcements, delay in assembly (IMO)), could not materialize.

Manstein informs that when it comes to it, they should attack 1.TA's flank and rear with the jump off position near the 18.Artillery-division. (24.PzK)

Although he wanted to strike as soon as possible, it would have to wait until 46.PzK completed its troop assemblies. 254.ID and 1.ID would be completed in a few days. On this basis, Jan 10 was (argued by Raus) the earliest date for the counterstrike.

Manstein also informs Raus that another wave of reinforcements is coming, starting with 371.ID which has been removed from the Balkans.

Army Group South: "Soviets had halted main effort in the center (Berdichev) and shifted their efforts to the wings.

- 1TA with 11GTC/8MC with an estimated 4-5 rifle divisions were attacking the right wing gap.
-40.A trying to outflank 7.AK
-On Northern wing (left) 13.A, 60.A 18.A, 1.GA, and 3GTA

"Faced with this situation, Manstein intended to conduct a stiff and mobile defense on the outer wings of 1.PzA/4.PzA while simultaneously attacking and destroying the 1.TA." After this was completed, it would "allow Raus and Hube to concentrate upon their respective wings and restore the situation there too".

Guidance from Manstein to Raus:"advised that 1.PzA was tasked to bring the outflanking manuever against 7.AK to a halt, close the gap between 7.AK and the 3.PzK by counterattacking" and prevent any future advance of the 40.A towards Uman. "This was to be conducted by the 46.PzK, with 16.Pz, 4.GD, 1.ID, and 254.ID" supported by 18.Art. etc, etc.

-Raus and Hube were instructed by Manstein to prepare counterattack proposals based on this guidance and submit these to Army Group South.

Jan 7, 1944 (1.PzA) :

Manstein sends a directive to Hube: Use 3.PzK to counterattack against 40.A advance. Once this has been completed, pull back 7.AK and 42.AK.

Manstein's second stage: 3.PzK drives westwards into the extended flank of the 1TA, while 46.PzK would take a corresponding drive into 1TA's right flank. 7.AK/42.AK is to withdraw, thus closing some of the gap.

-A soviet armored group has penetrated the depths of 7.AK/42.AK, the main supply lines of both korps were in danger of being cut. Hell believes that the 1.Guards Cavalry Corps is leading the maneuver. A soviet armored battlegroup with 30 tanks manuevers and hit's 34.ID's artillery park, inflicting heavy material losses. This causes 34.ID to pull back. It launches a counterattack with stug 202 and stug 239 but only limited progress is made. later on in the day, German intelligence identifies 5GTC in this sector.

-the gap held by 17.Pz (plus 506 Tiger) and 6.Pz has widened to 110 KM. These two divisions currently have the combat strength of 1/3rd of a full strength panzer division combined. Facing them are 1TA and a combined arms army. 6.Pz under attack, presumably to keep it away from 7.AK.

-In 17.Pz's area a "massive russian offensive was underway, with strong mobile and infantry forces threatening a breakthrough, either to the south and DG IV, or more likely to the southwest and Vinnitsa. With 42.AK/7.AK locked into their existing positions, 1.PzA had no forces available to defend against the soviet outflanking manuever south of 7.AK, still less mount a counterattack in the same area with a view to closing the gap."

-17.Pz withdraws, with a forward soviet mobile group of 60 tanks and 1,000 infantry pursuing close behind. 17.Pz suppresses them and other soviet armored groups with its artillery and a counterattack. The efforts of 3.Pz and 17.Pz to link up made some progress. Breith expects a major soviet attack the next day. Groups of soviet tanks spotted: 60, 20-30, 30-40, 85, etc. plus advancing rifle divisions.

-Author's appraisal: AGS/Manstein had failed to anticipate the soviet moves and freedom of action. Hube was banking on getting 3.Pz/GD from the southern wing of AGS but this was denied him. The only solution was to withdraw the right wing of 1.PzA- Hube's HQ suffers a "deep disappointment" among the staff (hube had been trying to get Busse/Manstein to allow him to withdraw and shorten the line days ago but the supreme command would not allow it). They cannot withdraw, and must hold & fight where they are.

-VVS concentrates airpower on 42.AK, inflicting damage on logistics (supply routes, supply dumps) and troop positions. Luftwaffe's efforts recorded as "indefatigable".

-10.Flak-Division (mot., of 3.PzK) enters the fray a few hours later, significantly improving AT/artillery/AA power for the panzer korps. It sets up a defensive line to the rear of 17.Pz. 101.Jager is nearly ready for action, and is given the order to advance and link up with 17.Pz. It is under direct control of 1.PzA. Hube orders 7.AK to perform recon in force in the gap towards 3.PzK.

__________________

^ Wow that's really IMPRESSIVE! I didn't know you was that much passioned by the WW2  

I feel sorry right now that my english is not enough good to reply you more properly, because your last post is very interesting !

WW2 is an extreamly wide topic, there's so much differents things to talk about and to study too.

The chronology, the logic of the war, the biographies, and of course the material. This war was clearly won in the factories too.

But more i "study" this time, more i'm impressed how much Hitler was a simple amateur who actually slow down the Wehrmacht.

That's why it make me crazy when i heard comparisons between Hitler and Napoleon...

Guderian is a good "axe" to study the war because he was there everytime something important or symbolic happened.

When Hitler "sacked" after the Moscow Battle, the war was lost imo...And even if the German Army had taken Moscow like La Grande Armée one century before, the east front was too big ...

German should have asked a temporay peace or pause lol at this moment to breath...Like Mussolini asked...

This war has been extrem, a total war, and still nowaday, this war is still weighing on us, on our mentality, and philosophies too.

Some differences with your post: (spoilers due to the length)

I would be cautious about certain aspects of Hitler.  The thing is- the German generals and Nazi leader memoirs (such as Speer, Manstein, Guderian most famously, etc.) they have a tendency to use the dead Hitler as a scapegoat for their own issues.  In reality in 1939-1941 it was the german professionals that were mostly running the show although hitler was supreme commander.   Guderian's

Panzer Leader has uses but also has many distortions (it was self-serving- he twist the situation to make himself look better in the face of history).

 

The professionals failed.   Their chief conceit was to vastly underestimate the Soviets.   The problem with the Wehrmacht was that that the Soviets were simply far too big and Germany's ability to supply and sustain forces against them was too limited.  The Soviet war machine was completely scary in its depth within the soviet society.  They train, mobilize troops and produce weapons so fast that the Germans and their axis allies could not keep up.  They also continuously improved their own quality of operations.  So it didn't matter if the Ostheer was better per division and had better Generals- over time they would lose.  They were already being outproduced by early 1942.

 

There was one chance to seize Moscow and it was around July-August 1941.  (Army Group Center, GFM von Bock)  The battle of the Smolensk pocket essentially destroyed their small chance of winning the war. 

 

Hitler's decisions were based on political, domestic, and military needs.  He would attempt to 'balance' the various parties.  This is where many great disasters for the wehrmacht came from after 1941.  The Ostheer did very well according their capabilities in 1942 but screwed themselves with the diversion into the Caucasus and Stalingrad.  They should have stopped attacking at around September 1942.  Kursk 1943, which was mostly driven by politics (hitler and his axis allies) was a gigantic disaster for them.

 

As the German forces retreated to the Dnepr, lost the Ukraine, lost Rumania, lost hungary, etc (1943-1945  Hitler was there helping the Germans lose faster by complicating the command apparatus, issuing stand-fast orders and fortified places doctrine. A common thing would be him launching offensives and wasting valuable forces that would have otherwise made the germans last longer in the field, etc.

 

A democratic republic would have surrendered or sought peace terms in 1941 or 1942.

Yes, WW2 is still relevant.  High impact history is used in modern politics to prove talking points, establish frameworks of beliefs, and promote interests- it always will be.  IMHO WW2 made the Russians much more scary politically (post-war) than they were before the war started.

The German army was rather..close in spirit to the Napeolonic age.  The Wehrmacht believed that superior quality soldiers, quick action, and maneuver will overcome their more numerous enemies.  The Soviets were a reflection of their Civil war and communist ideology.  The US army was a reflection of the american society as well.

Overal, i agree with what you said, but about Hitler, and the Nazi, because we can't talk about the WW and the Germany of this time and not talk about Nazism. They wanted this war, and they prepared this war, they give the victory to soviet. Hitler and his Nazi, were not capable or relevant in this war, just like Staline was not that either.

You siad "A democratic republic would have surrendered or sought peace terms in 1941 or 1942." i think a democratic country would never did barbarossa itself... Maybe the Battle of France was somehow logical, because we declared the war forced and compelled, but Barbarossa was useless in 1941...They should have insited over their offensive agaisnt England to "clean" for good the west front.

But that was the Nazi ideology...As us said, Barbarossa was not winnable, and as Nazism was an extremism, they was not able to see that.

Some people say, German lost the war, i think Soviet won the war, definitely, with the help of America, i think Russia could have done the war on two fronts, Europe and Asia.

And i would like to know your opinion about French army during the Battle of France

wall of text

What I'm saying is that the impact of Hitler in the conduct of Barbarossa/military operations was significant but not fully like a dictator.  He still had significant trust in his professionals and the "old Prussians".  He did wrestle with the OKW/OKH but it was not entirely his mouthpiece.  This trust collapsed after the failure of Typhoon and Hitler slowly & steadily cleaned house.  He fired GFM von Bock in the summer of 1942.   In the spring of 1942 the 3 x divisions of the Waffen SS were transformed into armored divisions. This was a seed of something subversive- the increasing nazification of the german army and the increase in the power of Himmler.  Goering's empire also grew as the germans were losing the war.

 

The biggest men in the field 1941 were Halder, GFM von Bock, GFM von Leeb, GFM von Rundstedt.  Later on, the german armed forces became more and more "nazified" (eg. the rise of the Waffen-SS).  But in 1939-1942 it was largely the conservative, war mongering german army, lead by the 'old prussians' and the general staff that called the shots in military operations with Hitler.  It was not just nazis that wanted war, but german military leaders.  Segments of the german population were also war-friendly.

 

-differences: The Soviets didn't need the US to win the war :-p  They already effectively won (100%) without using much lend lease.   

 

-French Army?  I don't study France 1940 much and cannot give an opinion.  But I know that individual panzer divisions like the 7.Pz and the 3.Pz completely wrecked the french and british combat formations in tactical actions.  Ditto for the elite Infanterie-regiment GD.  They took a high number of prisoners (not operational pocket related) and their own losses were not particularly high.    The shock of the operations  was too favorable for them.  The battle of France and the pre-Barbarossa campaigns helped improve the German army for the war against the Soviet Union.  A major change was in the structure of the Panzer Division.  It was radically altered.  The infantry divisions were also changed and more of both were created.  Also, the victories of 1940-1941 helped create a large cadre of veterans, which helped improve the operating qualities of the divisions.  So in that sense, 1939-1941 was a training exercise for the next german army.

-I am largely focused on military operations and pure combat, not interpreting general history. (what we are doing now) 

I'm not totally agree with what you said about the conduct of the war by Hitler...I think Germans lost the war because of the Nazis, maybe without the Nazis, there would be no war ...But as you said it's only about interpretation. 

Well, Soviets needed some help in 1941, and Soviets really enjoyed the US trucks they had. But overal i agree with you, Soviets would have won the war without the USA.

France lost the Battle of France because the bad strategy...France got more tanks than the Wehrmacht...Bigger number and better quality, but they used them just in support of the infantry, the same with their aviation. 

Funny to know that German General Staff read the book from de Gaulle, Le fil de l'epaix, in which he was basically explaining how the next war will change the way to conduct the operations, and how armored divisions and aviation, will be the winning factors of the war, no one heard in in France, in Germany yes, the Blitzkrieg was born  

text wall

If you check my book list, I can source the Barbarossa content to high quality works.  I have already read much of the Colonel-General Halder/GFM von Bock war diaries.

 

The flow of lend-lease was not rapid.  It was slow and gradually built up over the years.  The "US trucks" did not make a material impact until summer 1943 onward.    This is when you start seeing allied lend-lease material really starting to help in the tactical level. In 1941 there was very little lend-lease flowing the USSR compared to their domestic resources.  Lend-lease can be seen as a bonus so to speak- it helps eg. plus 5%, 10%, 15% but not much more.   Although it can be said that allied war material and the Italian/west front helped the soviets make giant successes in 1944 as big as they were. 

 

I believe that many historians, who are not professional soldiers themselves- tend to vastly overestimate the material/manpower numbers and underestimate the military brainpower (troop training, combat leadership, tactical insight, organization).  In ww2 this often easily overcome superior material and manpower or allowed very weak forces to perform much better than they should have.  However, it varied a great deal whether or not this was the case.

 

The French and BEF in 1940 were more mechanized than the German army and had more armor (measured in tons).  What is discernible, and very interesting is to see how armies evolve and change based on innovation or experience.  People make mistakes, then they learn and adapt. eg. the soviet armored force (tank armies) by fall1943/winter1944 had improved a great deal since the summer of 1943.  Also, the primacy of infantry.  It was the same two hundred years ago and it is the same today- only infantry can take and hold territory.  Material just helps to shoot them there, that's all.

Yes, well, you know very well the subject ! Crazy to think we are still discovering new facts and truths about this war, despite the civilization was very developpate...

^

The information is stored at various archives around the world (such as TSAMO in Russia or National Archives in Washington DC).  The area just needs military-literate historians (former professional soldiers with training in historical methodology are usually the best analysts/writers) to mine through all the countless data and battle documentation to build a history.  It takes many years to produce an original work and full fluency in those languages.  Also, it is hard to get into these archives if you aren't a university scholar or a proven scholar with credentials.

 

It's a hard sell- the market is quite niche and it is not easy to find talent to do this.  And the talent that works on this stuff do this out of their love of the subject, not because they are trying to make money.  But making new history is quite an amazing thing to see- the final product really turns everything over on its head and breaks new ground.

 

The difficulties are reflected in how there is little interest in professional grade materials with great detail about military operations in the US ( even about the West front 1944).  Most of the literature getting published and sold are general history, memoirs, and picture books.

Yes, but i understand that the access to such important archives are limited, that's the same for Les Archives Nationales in Paris, it's less difficuly at the Bibliothèque nationale de France1 but you still have to ask some days before when you want to have access to some documents.

1

Yes, i get this tendance also that History is now view and treated like a romance...Some are even saying that History is over, and some are intellectuals...History will be over the day where the last man will die lol 

To be honest, i like statistics, and true facts, we can learn lots of truth in studying statistics, but i'm more into interpretation. In France we that Le Roman National ( The National Romance), we try to give a sense and a logical to our past, it's good when it's matter to to give to the younger of us an easy way to start to learn History, but then, it's start to a probleme when some people are trying to use History for their own interests, which is always more the case now i find.

History is a science, and need a good level of rigor, and honesty with the facts too. 

But i get to that countries can have a differente point of view in some episods of the History, especially when it's recent History.

And the WW2 is still that. 

We can be sure of only one thing about the WW2, the next big war won't be the same, the one, the faction, who will not get that at the first minutes of the war will lose for sure.