Nazi World

[Keebler Elf]

Stalingrad was not a strategic point, just about Stalin's pride. The Caucus oil might have been significant but that still would have been long and vulnerable supply lines. The Russians had enough numbers to continue fighting and reestablish production facilities further east. Without a significant increase in manpower and resources, Russia would be unlikely to be conquered. Even a Japanese invasion into the east would have suffered so much from the weather and distance to be ineffective (as they were a few years earlier).

And Hitler's pride. Up until then the Germans had (correctly) bypassed cities of resistance (e.g., Kiev, Leningrad) and instead isolated them and laid siege to them. Both Hitler and Stalin turned Stalingrad into a political strategic point of victory.

Whether the USSR could have been defeated if the Germans had done things differently is total speculation as we'll never know what other events would have transpired and played out. What is clear is that the German planners dramatically underestimated the reserves that the USSR could call upon and also the average Russian's willingness to fight (and die) for Mother Russia. Combined, these two estimations had fatal consequences for the Germans. Was the USSR unbeatable? I don't think so, but I would say the odds did not favour the Germans. Had they taken Moscow in 1941 things could have turned out very differently (as it was the central artery for transportation in western Russia, not to mention the political heart of the USSR). That wouldn't have ended the war but it would have made it much more difficult for the USSR to conduct.

I agree about Japan. If Germany was ill-equipped to take on the vastness of the Soviet empire, this is doubly true for the Japanese.

 

[james t kirk]

The Russians were never going to lose to the Germans. No how, no way.

It's too huge of a country, with too many people, with too many resources. The further Germany advanced into Russia, the further their supply lines were stretched. The Russians would fall back and burn everything behind them so as not to leave anything of any use to the Germans. The word surrender does not exist in the Russian vocabulary. The Russian populace would fight street to street, house to house. They would pick up a a broken 2 x 4 and use it as a club to kill a German soldier rather than surrender. For all the German bravado and arrogance and racial purity bullshit - they never had a prayer against the Russians.

To me, the turning point of the war was not Stalingrad, it was Kursk. A million Germans squaring off against a million Russians in the middle of a field. There were no prisoners taken on either side and there was no surrender. It was kill or be killed and in the end, the Russians were still standing and the Germans were all dead. (and it was summer, not winter). Kursk made D-day look like a tea party (with all respect to those who fought in D day). The world had never seen a killing spree like Kursk in its entire history and hopefully never will again. From that day on, it was just a matter of time before the soviet machine rolled right into Berlin and exacted pay back. The western allies didn't land in France in 1944 to defeat the Germans. They landed in France to stop the Russians from going all the way to the English Channel. The Germans (not the French) should thank the British, Canadians and Americans for saving THEIR asses.

 

[Keebler Elf]

The impact and decisiveness of the Midway battle really cannot be over-emphasized. Midway Changed Everything.

In the Pacific, yes. In Europe, no.

The Soviets did more to win the war against Nazi Germany than any of the other Allied powers, including the USA. Americans don't want to admit that (or are too ignorant to figure it out) but it's true. By the time of D-Day the USSR was already steam rolling across eastern Europe.

But in the Pacific, it was the Americans who carried the day and that's something that they can truly be proud of.

 

[Keebler Elf]

The Russians were never going to lose to the Germans. No how, no way.

It's too huge of a country, with too many people, with too many resources. The further Germany advanced into Russia, the further their supply lines were stretched. The Russians would fall back and burn everything behind them so as not to leave anything of any use to the Germans. The word surrender does not exist in the Russian vocabulary. The Russian populace would fight street to street, house to house. They would pick up a a broken 2 x 4 and use it as a club to kill a German soldier rather than surrender. For all the German bravado and arrogance and racial purity bullshit - they never had a prayer against the Russians.

To me, the turning point of the war was not Stalingrad, it was Kursk. A million Germans squaring off against a million Russians in the middle of a field. There were no prisoners taken on either side and there was no surrender. It was kill or be killed and in the end, the Russians were still standing and the Germans were all dead. (and it was summer, not winter). Kursk made D-day look like a tea party (with all respect to those who fought in D day). The world had never seen a killing spree like Kursk in its entire history and hopefully never will again. From that day on, it was just a matter of time before the soviet machine rolled right into Berlin and exacted pay back. The western allies didn't land in France in 1944 to defeat the Germans. They landed in France to stop the Russians from going all the way to the English Channel. The Germans (not the French) should thank the British, Canadians and Americans for saving THEIR asses.

You sound like someone who has watched too many movies and read too few books. In toe to toe combat the Germans would regularly inflict 5:1 to 10:1 casualties against the Russians. Man for man, the Germans were much more than a match for the Russians. The Germans also proved to be far superior defensive fighters than the Russians (the Germans were renowned for their ability on defense, even though every thinks about their offense). Scorched earth is a tactic used by every army. There's nothing special about the Russians using it. What the Russians were great at is expending thousands and millions of lives on idiotic tactics that were nothing short of delaying tactics based on being butchered. From 1941-1943, the greatest asset the Soviets had was a seemingly endless supply of manpower (and even that is a myth as the Soviets were running out of troops by May 1945). By 1944-1945 the Soviets had rebuilt their armed forces and had learned through experience so they were much better matched against the Germans. Man for man they were still inferior but the Soviets had 10 men for every 1 German (that's actually an exaggeration as normally they outnumbered the Germans, at least in a given theatre, by only about 2 to 5:1).

Your knowledge of Kursk is sorely lacking. The Germans were not "all dead"; in fact, they were anything but and gave much worse than they received. Historians argue over whether the Germans could have indeed won the Battle of Kursk if they had pressed on (personally I think probably not) as their southern pincer was making fairly decent progress and was poised to break out. But the invasion of Sicily occurred at the same time and Hitler ordered key units away from Kursk and that ended any hope of continuing on the battle. Kursk was the turning point in the sense that the strategic initiative (at least on the Eastern Front) would thereafter pass to the Soviets and the Germans would never again regain it. But others will say that Stalingrad marked the high water point for the Germans and everything after that was a slow withdrawal. Whether it was late 1942 or summer 1943, either way the tide had turned somewhere in that period.

A great book on the Soviet military during WWII is "Hitler's Nemesis" from Stackpole Books. It traces the evolution (revolution?) of the Soviet armed forces from 1930-1945 and shows how it "matured" in the last 3 years of the war after their original armies had been almost entirely wiped out in 1941-1942.

 

[james t kirk]

^^ And you must be German.

I've noted you always post in just about any thread on WW2 and you always sing the praises of the Nazi war machine.

I bet you had an uncle or five who were fighting for old Adolf.

 

[Keebler Elf]

^^ And you must be German.

Nope, Canadian.

But I know my World War II.

Like it or not, and politics aside, from a militarist point of view the German war machine was something to be admired. All of the Allied armed forces did (and still do even today). There is something about the Germans that takes very well to war (for whatever reason). No idea if that still exists today but it sure did in the 19th-20th centuries.

p.s., you know you've won the argument when the other guy's best comeback is, "You must be a Nazi to think that!" lol

 

[probyn]

The contributions are great, but what would you guys have done differently from Adolf, besides not attacking Russia?

 

[probyn]

Keebler Elf writes: "There is something about the Germans that takes very well to war (for whatever reason)."


The Germans were defeated twice at their national sport.

 

[Aardvark154]

There's a reason the Americans still teach blitzkrieg tactics in their war colleges.

Yes,there is. However, to attempt from that to say that if a) the Maginot Line had been extended to the sea b) the Germans hadn't been able to penetrate the Ardennes and hence out flank the French Army, everything would have remained the same, is to put it mildly strange.

 

[probyn]

Hitler made insane decisions, like invading Russia just before winter, because he knew he was running out of time. He was decomposing both mentally and physically because of advanced syphilis. He also suffered from Parkinsons and was fed dangerous drugs by his quack doctor, which also impaired his judgement. So, if you do not have these disadvantages and you have the luxury of time, how would you have waged the war?

 

[Rockslinger]

from a militarist point of view the German war machine was something to be admired.

My friends in the Political Forum would disagree with you. They said that Germany was ill prepared for war in 1939 and that Britain and France could have kicked Germany's ass.

 

[Aardvark154]

They said that Germany was ill prepared for war in 1939

True, the German military had expected to have at least another two to three years before any war.

and that Britain and France could have kicked Germany's ass.

Saying that on paper France and Great Britain had stronger militaries means just that.

 

[mrsCALoki]

^^ And you must be German.

I've noted you always post in just about any thread on WW2 and you always sing the praises of the Nazi war machine.

I bet you had an uncle or five who were fighting for old Adolf.

At least he is not pointing out that if the US had not been the major supplier to Germany the war would have ended much faster People who pint that out are very annoying.

 

[Aardvark154]

At least he is not pointing out that if the US had not been the major supplier to Germany the war would have ended much faster

Peculiar given that Germany complained that while officially neutral the U.S.A. was clearly favouring the U.K. and Canada such as escorting Convoys as far as Iceland. The U.S.S. Ruben James (DD-245) was even sunk by a German U-boat October 31, 1941.

 

[mrsCALoki]

Peculiar given that Germany complained that while officially neutral the U.S.A. was clearly favouring the U.K. and Canada such as escorting Convoys as far as Iceland. The U.S.S. Ruben James (DD-245) was even sunk by a German U-boat October 31, 1941.

When did the war start? When did the Americans stop selling to both sides and join the war? When did the war end?

I was never very good at ancient history.

 

[basketcase]

You sound like someone who has watched too many movies and read too few books. In toe to toe combat the Germans would regularly inflict 5:1 to 10:1 casualties against the Russians.....

Man to man isn't much of an issue given Russia's population and the attrition rate for Germans in Russia's winter.

 

[d_jedi]

Their biggest blunder was obviously being unprepared for the Russian winter. Germany was already receiving supplies from Russia under the Molotov-Ribbenthrop (sp?) pact, and there really was no real need to fight a war on two fronts at that point. Operation Barbarossa should have been postponed until they could achieve a decisive victory in the Battle of Britain. Without war with the Russians, there would not be a compelling case for Germany to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, and presumably the Americans would have focused the entirety of their efforts against the Japanese.

 

[mandrill]

You sound like someone who has watched too many movies and read too few books. In toe to toe combat the Germans would regularly inflict 5:1 to 10:1 casualties against the Russians. Man for man, the Germans were much more than a match for the Russians. The Germans also proved to be far superior defensive fighters than the Russians (the Germans were renowned for their ability on defense, even though every thinks about their offense). Scorched earth is a tactic used by every army. There's nothing special about the Russians using it. What the Russians were great at is expending thousands and millions of lives on idiotic tactics that were nothing short of delaying tactics based on being butchered. From 1941-1943, the greatest asset the Soviets had was a seemingly endless supply of manpower (and even that is a myth as the Soviets were running out of troops by May 1945). By 1944-1945 the Soviets had rebuilt their armed forces and had learned through experience so they were much better matched against the Germans. Man for man they were still inferior but the Soviets had 10 men for every 1 German (that's actually an exaggeration as normally they outnumbered the Germans, at least in a given theatre, by only about 2 to 5:1).

Your knowledge of Kursk is sorely lacking. The Germans were not "all dead"; in fact, they were anything but and gave much worse than they received. Historians argue over whether the Germans could have indeed won the Battle of Kursk if they had pressed on (personally I think probably not) as their southern pincer was making fairly decent progress and was poised to break out. But the invasion of Sicily occurred at the same time and Hitler ordered key units away from Kursk and that ended any hope of continuing on the battle. Kursk was the turning point in the sense that the strategic initiative (at least on the Eastern Front) would thereafter pass to the Soviets and the Germans would never again regain it. But others will say that Stalingrad marked the high water point for the Germans and everything after that was a slow withdrawal. Whether it was late 1942 or summer 1943, either way the tide had turned somewhere in that period.

A great book on the Soviet military during WWII is "Hitler's Nemesis" from Stackpole Books. It traces the evolution (revolution?) of the Soviet armed forces from 1930-1945 and shows how it "matured" in the last 3 years of the war after their original armies had been almost entirely wiped out in 1941-1942.

Hi Keebler. Since you're in full "the Wehrmacht was god's gift to warfare" mode, here's a link for a recent discussion on the topic of whether the Germans could have won at Kursk on my wargames / military history forum - the sort of place where everybody is a war nerd and spends most of his time reading war history books. Everybody but 1 or 2 guys laughed at the idea that the Germans could possible have won at Kursk. There are maps there comparing the tiny inroads the Germans made into the Kursk salient - when you claim they "almost won" - to the massive sweeping gains made by the Red Army when they brought their reserves into the fray in August and September 43. Compared with the hundred square miles of so that the Germans painfully hacked out, the Soviets basically retook the Ukraine all the way to the Dnepr. They cleared up the rest of the Ukraine in the next few months and were in Rumania by April 44. Germans couldn't do much to stop them. The "defensive geniuses" basically took it up the ass from the Soviets for the rest of the war and did little but bleat and whimper.

Your version of Kursk is a straightforward rehash of the silly nonsense that certain war historians spout in order to sell books to fans of the German army.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=280314

 

[mandrill]

Now this is a good bit of revisionist history. It was luck was it? Okay (laughing).

There's a reason the Americans still teach blitzkrieg tactics in their war colleges.

Luck in that Hitler backed Heinz Guderian and his "crazy" theories about tanks and mobile warfare while Stalin was busy executing Tukhachevsky, (the Russian counterpart to Guderian) and the Soviets were reaffirming their idea that running forward with rifles shouting communist slogans and beating the enemy with your superior political correctness would win the next war. And the French had no idea and weren't that interested in being in another war at all.

If either France or the USSR was in any way prepared to fight a serious war, the Wehrmacht would have ended up getting its tail kicked in the first couple of years of the war.

When the Germans fought an enemy that was organized, prepared, skilful and briefed in modern techniques, they got beaten. Just ask those RAF Fighter Command boys what happened in the Battle of Britain.

 

[mandrill]

You sound like someone who has watched too many movies and read too few books. In toe to toe combat the Germans would regularly inflict 5:1 to 10:1 casualties against the Russians. Man for man, the Germans were much more than a match for the Russians. The Germans also proved to be far superior defensive fighters than the Russians (the Germans were renowned for their ability on defense, even though every thinks about their offense). Scorched earth is a tactic used by every army. There's nothing special about the Russians using it. What the Russians were great at is expending thousands and millions of lives on idiotic tactics that were nothing short of delaying tactics based on being butchered. From 1941-1943, the greatest asset the Soviets had was a seemingly endless supply of manpower (and even that is a myth as the Soviets were running out of troops by May 1945). By 1944-1945 the Soviets had rebuilt their armed forces and had learned through experience so they were much better matched against the Germans. Man for man they were still inferior but the Soviets had 10 men for every 1 German (that's actually an exaggeration as normally they outnumbered the Germans, at least in a given theatre, by only about 2 to 5:1).

Well, no. In fact at the time of Stalingrad, the axis actually deployed more front line troops on the Eastern Front than the Soviets did. And the Germans didn't kill Russians at a 10:1 ratio. If they did that, they would have won the war in 41. Given what you're telling me, please explain how the Soviets beat the German so cleanly at Stalingrad, in the Ukraine in 43 and in Belarus in 44. It wasn't just superior numbers.