Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2010-03-13 21:07:09
Marlo Stanfield
online poker tax cheating
+122|5154
I was reading an article online that made the point that Germany had no chance in hell of defeating Russia due to Russia's massive size.

But forgive me if I'm wrong, wasn't the Russian army massively ineffective and were using civilians to soak up rounds and just wore the Germans down instead of actually making any type of real strategic gain? Aside from that wasn't Nazi Germany much closer to getting the A-bomb than the Soviets were? Considering all the other things the Germans did, they more than likely wouldn't have a problem repeatedly nuking Russia.

So the hypothetical situation:    The U.K. and France decides to let the whole invasion of Poland thing go, war is never declared and the Western front never opens up. The U.S. doesn't supply, Russia with anything since it has it's own problems and Japan doesn't do anything stupid. So the Russians and the Germans are left to throw their full weight at each other. Do you think Germany would have been able to pull it off or would the Russians eventually have won like they did?

On a sidenote the Nazi would have won a fashion show
https://www.diggerhistory.info/images/uniforms/uniform-ss_officers.gif
snappy dressers

Last edited by Marlo Stanfield (2010-03-13 21:09:45)

2010-03-13 21:16:16
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6673|Disaster Free Zone
If Hitler had let his experienced military Generals run the campaign and given them adequate supply lines, they would have steam rolled Russia with or without your hypothetical situation.
2010-03-13 21:23:45
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6144|what

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

But forgive me if I'm wrong, wasn't the Russian army massively ineffective and were using civilians to soak up rounds and just wore the Germans down instead of actually making any type of real strategic gain?
Have a look at the pincer movement the Russians made to trap Paulus' 6th army. They held him at Starlingrad and then encircled them brilliantly. The entire German army was wiped out. You can argue that the Germans went too far into Russia all you like, but it was backed up by some perfect manoeuvring by the Russians to not only cut off Paulus supply lines, but to place them in "Der Kessel". The pincer movement of Operation Uranus was all they had to do, let Paulus advance into Russia and over stretch and then fall into the trap and have to deal with the harsh Russian Winter. Not even Napoleon could lead an army against the Russian cold.

As for your hypothetical, Germany was always going to invade France. They wanted to take back land that was handed over in the treaty of Versai. And they needed to invade North Africa for the oil. They had to support Italy and fight in Malta. They were always over extended.

And as for the strategic gain the Russian made? Have a look at who got the East of Berlin...

Last edited by AussieReaper (2010-03-13 21:28:14)

https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-03-13 21:27:09
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,736|6728|Oxferd Ohire
I would say Russia would have a chance at first but if the war dragged on Germany would be getting better and better tech.

DrunkFace wrote:

If Hitler had let his experienced military Generals run the campaign and given them adequate supply lines, they would have steam rolled Russia with or without your hypothetical situation.
That's the problem. So many ifs. If this if that. I could say Russia would win easily if they developed the nuke before Germany... Although I would say that Germany's best generals would probably be in command since it's only one front in this situation..
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
2010-03-13 21:29:20
Longbow
Member
+163|6638|Odessa, Ukraine
I believe it would have the same ending, just like those Battle of Midway theories "what if japanese haven't lost 4 large aircraft carriers" or Pearl Harbour ones "what if american carriers werent on their training but were statitioned in harbour when the attack occurs". Speaking of Pacific, US would still won simply because they had much better industry and proper organization of naval pilots training (adequate numbers, unlike japanese).

If Hitler had let his generals to run the campain, they would for sure capture bigger territory, but overall, I doubt they would completely destroy Russia simply because in 1941 they lacked a lot of military stuff that was introduced in 1943-1944 (when germany wasn't able to produce it in needed numbers). War on Eastern Front would for sure be more bloody, long etc. but I really doubt that germans would succeed overall.
2010-03-14 04:50:11
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6618|Canada
no one has ever conquered russia, and quite frankly, no one will. it is too vast. There are many "If germany only ____________ they would have won" and all of em are bs.

There are many things that couldve been done to prolong the war, but essentially, germany wouldve lost.

If germany produced the first nuke, then maybe they wouldve caused nuclear winter by bombing london, nyc, d.c., moscow. (they had V-Series rockets named New York and Washington in the works in 1945)
2010-03-14 07:26:14
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6464|Kakanien
1. the german army had the chance to withdraw from stalingrad and in doing so saving the 6th army. a lot of the highest german military leaders urged hitler to do so. but he refused

2. i personally think, germany would have lost the war even if fighting only the soviet union (and even if conquering moscow, leningrad and stalingrad). wars are mostly decided on a strategic, not an operational level. and in this regard, the soviet union was superior (population, raw materials, production capacity, space etc.)

3. germany was far, far away from developping an atomic bomb

4. it's true that the highest military leadership in the soviet union was far inferior to their german counterpart (one reason was that stalin almost wiped out the higher and highest officer corps in the 30s). well, hitler and stalin were both extremely bad military decison makers, but at the beginning of the war, only stalins wrong decisions had consequences (he ordered the red army to beat the germans near the german-soviet line of demarcation. that's why entire soviet armies got encircled). the soviet generals got better during the war, but still were no match to the germans. it was the sheer mass of humans and material, that won the war, not military knowledge. shit, the soviets lost 350000 or so soldiers during the battle of berlin, when the war was pratically over

Last edited by cl4u53w1t2 (2010-03-14 07:27:41)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0
2010-03-14 08:33:46
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5349|London, England
I think many people are ignoring the reality of Russian geography and demographics. About 90% of the population is packed into a very small band of land west of the Ural Mountains. To the east is sparsely populated Siberia. So, 90% of the people are crowded into 25% of the nation... All you would really need to beat Russia is to capture that 25%. Hitler fucked up and focused on Stalingrad, the generals fucked up in not planning for the Russian winter. The Russians had a superior tank (T-34) and a willingness to launch suicidal attacks to the last man.

The only things that really separated Germany from victory in Russia was a lack of preparation for the winter and the fact that they raped and pillaged their way across the territory they conquered which prevented them from having supply lines secure from partisan attack. If they had studied Napoleons issues in Russia in 1812 and Portugal in 1810 they could've learned from his mistakes. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-03-14 09:37:03
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5991|Vortex Ring State

JohnG@lt wrote:

I think many people are ignoring the reality of Russian geography and demographics. About 90% of the population is packed into a very small band of land west of the Ural Mountains. To the east is sparsely populated Siberia. So, 90% of the people are crowded into 25% of the nation... All you would really need to beat Russia is to capture that 25%. Hitler fucked up and focused on Stalingrad, the generals fucked up in not planning for the Russian winter. The Russians had a superior tank (T-34) and a willingness to launch suicidal attacks to the last man.

The only things that really separated Germany from victory in Russia was a lack of preparation for the winter and the fact that they raped and pillaged their way across the territory they conquered which prevented them from having supply lines secure from partisan attack. If they had studied Napoleons issues in Russia in 1812 and Portugal in 1810 they could've learned from his mistakes. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Agree. Although the fail logistics are inherent in blitzkrieg, unless your logistics corps is like 2x the size of your army...
2010-03-14 10:19:42
rdx-fx
...
+955|6583
Takes days to capture territory, decades to own it.

So many things could've gone either way, but for the smallest accidents of history;
2010-03-14 10:35:03
Wreckognize
Member
+294|6476

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

On a sidenote the Nazi would have won a fashion show
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/un … ficers.gif
snappy dressers
I agree the Nazis definitely had the coolest bad guy uniforms.
2010-03-14 11:46:11
rdx-fx
...
+955|6583

Wreckognize wrote:

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

On a sidenote the Nazi would have won a fashion show
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/un … ficers.gif
snappy dressers
I agree the Nazis definitely had the coolest bad guy uniforms.
2010-03-14 11:52:46
seymorebutts443
Ready for combat
+211|6586|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA
Russian commanders were actually not that ignorant. They knew how to play into people's nationalism. Case in point would be the Battle of Kursk. The massive defensive fortifications the Russians built, were built primarily out of civilian volunteers. When i say massive, i mean like some of these dirt forts had 4500 men stationed in them with several dozen AT guns and tanks. It's not that the Russians hid behind the civilians, it's that the civilians took up arms along side the red army and fought back.
2010-03-14 14:32:14
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5991|Vortex Ring State

seymorebutts443 wrote:

Russian commanders were actually not that ignorant. They knew how to play into people's nationalism. Case in point would be the Battle of Kursk. The massive defensive fortifications the Russians built, were built primarily out of civilian volunteers. When i say massive, i mean like some of these dirt forts had 4500 men stationed in them with several dozen AT guns and tanks. It's not that the Russians hid behind the civilians, it's that the civilians took up arms along side the red army and fought back.
What? Those civilians were defending their own land. They had nothing to lose.
2010-03-14 16:30:40
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6464|Kakanien

rdx-fx wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

On a sidenote the Nazi would have won a fashion show
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/un … ficers.gif
snappy dressers
I agree the Nazis definitely had the coolest bad guy uniforms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZ8EkK3eWY
the skull on their collar patch means they are from the 3. ss-totenkopfdivision (death's head division)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0
2010-03-14 16:33:58
Longbow
Member
+163|6638|Odessa, Ukraine

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

1. the german army had the chance to withdraw from stalingrad and in doing so saving the 6th army. a lot of the highest german military leaders urged hitler to do so. but he refused
Dude thats 1 army, possibly the best one on eastern front, but germans did not lose simply due to loss of 6th army. On strategic level, they simply werent able to compete with Russia due to several factors like size of territory, Hitler being a moron (since 1942 or so, b4 he acted quite wise speaking of his military decisions), lack of oil, improper treatment of civilians in occupied territories, etc etc.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

it's true that the highest military leadership in the soviet union was far inferior to their german counterpart (one reason was that stalin almost wiped out the higher and highest officer corps in the 30s).
Yet lots of talented officers & generals survived wipe outs and leaded military during WWII, obviously they got their experience & skills not in military academies but at the battlefield.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

well, hitler and stalin were both extremely bad military decison makers, but at the beginning of the war, only stalins wrong decisions had consequences (he ordered the red army to beat the germans near the german-soviet line of demarcation. that's why entire soviet armies got encircled).
If they were that bad, why one of them conquered entire Europe and other one won war at Eastern front. And please, dont say that that were the generals - there sure were ton of advisers, but in the end the last word/decision is up to one man. As for 1941 Eastern Front disaster - Stalin did not order red army to beat the germans at german-soviet line of demarcation, red army was ALREADY THERE, at the state border lines. Theres lots of proof that both Stalin and Hitler were planning to attack each other, Hitler just had a little bit more balls and started earlier, completely wiping out defenceless red army that was about to strike itself (e.g. - lots of troops near border, lots of military supply right next to troops and shit like that). Red army simply wasn't able to fight in summer '41 due to complete loss of supplies that were destroyed/captured by germans. Once supply lines were re-established german offensive began to slow down and eventually was stopped by russian winter. Germans still had initiative in their hands back in 1942 due to lack of combat experience of russian top generals, but in the late 1942 they already began to lose.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

the soviet generals got better during the war, but still were no match to the germans. it was the sheer mass of humans and material, that won the war, not military knowledge.
German generals also made mistakes (hint: Orel/Kursk)

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

shit, the soviets lost 350000 or so soldiers during the battle of berlin, when the war was pratically over
Urban warfare + Hitler's order to stand till death means anything to you?
2010-03-14 16:38:59
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5349|London, England

Longbow wrote:

Dude thats 1 army, possibly the best one on eastern front, but germans did not lose simply due to loss of 6th army. On strategic level, they simply werent able to compete with Russia due to several factors like size of territory, Hitler being a moron (since 1942 or so, b4 he acted quite wise speaking of his military decisions), lack of oil, improper treatment of civilians in occupied territories, etc etc.
Just wanted to pick this out... Hitler was a moron throughout the war. His idiocy is what let the British escape at Dunkirk instead of finishing them off and possibly finishing the war.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-03-14 16:42:11
Longbow
Member
+163|6638|Odessa, Ukraine

JohnG@lt wrote:

His idiocy is what let the British escape at Dunkirk instead of finishing them off and possibly finishing the war.
Theres a theory that Hitler was still dreaming he could establish cease fire or even military treaty with brits at that time. Obviously, there was no chance of that, but it's Hitler after all..
2010-03-14 16:45:46
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6592|132 and Bush

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

On a sidenote the Nazi would have won a fashion show
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/un … ficers.gif
snappy dressers
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7456/hitlerwithoutamustache2.jpg
purple is so underated
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-03-14 16:49:35
androoz
Banned
+137|5204|United States
why didnt the german people kill hitler?
2010-03-14 16:49:39
Marlo Stanfield
online poker tax cheating
+122|5154

Kmarion wrote:

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

On a sidenote the Nazi would have won a fashion show
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/un … ficers.gif
snappy dressers
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7456 … tache2.jpg
purple is so underated
Purple was a color of royalty back than still sorta is today
https://www.completelybonkers.co.uk/images/smi2%20pimp%20purple.jpg
2010-03-14 16:59:06
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6464|Kakanien

Longbow wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

His idiocy is what let the British escape at Dunkirk instead of finishing them off and possibly finishing the war.
Theres a theory that Hitler was still dreaming he could establish cease fire or even military treaty with brits at that time. Obviously, there was no chance of that, but it's Hitler after all..
hitler's real motive was to assert his leadership claim against the general officer corps

http://books.google.de/books?id=7Y0MxdP … mp;f=false
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0
2010-03-14 17:01:02
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6464|Kakanien

androoz wrote:

why didnt the german people kill hitler?
there were 39 (confirmed and evidenced) attempts to assassinate hitler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0
2010-03-14 17:17:40
CC-Marley
Member
+407|6820
The Russians also mass produced effective tanks (T-34) deep in her territory. Far out of reach of Hitler's bombers.
2010-03-14 17:53:44
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6464|Kakanien

Longbow wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

1. the german army had the chance to withdraw from stalingrad and in doing so saving the 6th army. a lot of the highest german military leaders urged hitler to do so. but he refused
Dude thats 1 army, possibly the best one on eastern front, but germans did not lose simply due to loss of 6th army. On strategic level, they simply werent able to compete with Russia due to several factors like size of territory, Hitler being a moron (since 1942 or so, b4 he acted quite wise speaking of his military decisions), lack of oil, improper treatment of civilians in occupied territories, etc etc.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

it's true that the highest military leadership in the soviet union was far inferior to their german counterpart (one reason was that stalin almost wiped out the higher and highest officer corps in the 30s).
Yet lots of talented officers & generals survived wipe outs and leaded military during WWII, obviously they got their experience & skills not in military academies but at the battlefield.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

well, hitler and stalin were both extremely bad military decison makers, but at the beginning of the war, only stalins wrong decisions had consequences (he ordered the red army to beat the germans near the german-soviet line of demarcation. that's why entire soviet armies got encircled).
If they were that bad, why one of them conquered entire Europe and other one won war at Eastern front. And please, dont say that that were the generals - there sure were ton of advisers, but in the end the last word/decision is up to one man. As for 1941 Eastern Front disaster - Stalin did not order red army to beat the germans at german-soviet line of demarcation, red army was ALREADY THERE, at the state border lines. Theres lots of proof that both Stalin and Hitler were planning to attack each other, Hitler just had a little bit more balls and started earlier, completely wiping out defenceless red army that was about to strike itself (e.g. - lots of troops near border, lots of military supply right next to troops and shit like that). Red army simply wasn't able to fight in summer '41 due to complete loss of supplies that were destroyed/captured by germans. Once supply lines were re-established german offensive began to slow down and eventually was stopped by russian winter. Germans still had initiative in their hands back in 1942 due to lack of combat experience of russian top generals, but in the late 1942 they already began to lose.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

the soviet generals got better during the war, but still were no match to the germans. it was the sheer mass of humans and material, that won the war, not military knowledge.
German generals also made mistakes (hint: Orel/Kursk)

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

shit, the soviets lost 350000 or so soldiers during the battle of berlin, when the war was pratically over
Urban warfare + Hitler's order to stand till death means anything to you?
- didn't say the defeat at stalingrad was decisive. it sure was not. i just wanted to point out that not the soviet generals' leadership and operational skills but hitler's stupidity lead to the defeat at stalingrad. i also said that germany was not able to compete with the soviet union on a strategic level

- stalin had 90% of the generals and 60% of all the officers executed between 1935 and 1939. and leading on the battlefield doesn't substitute for a general staff education

- there are several reasons why hitler and then stalin were able to conquer half of europe but none of them was their (non-existent) military leadership and operational skills

- yeah, the red army was near the line of demarcation, but they could have easily been withdrawn to the east (which was done in the summer of 42 during the german offensive in direction of stalingrad and the caucasus)

- it's a myth that stalin planned to attack germany (at least not within the next 5 years or so). that preemptive-war theory (hitler anticipating stalin) is simply not true

- the mistakes of the soviet generals far outweighed these of their german counterparts

- at the battle of berlin, the germans had about 1 million soldiers 800 tanks and 100 aircraft, the soviets had 2,5 million soldiers, 6250 tanks, 7500 aircraft and far more than 10000 artillery guns. plus the german soldiers were mostly elderly or very young or weary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard