I'm saying it's the weather that caused the slowing of the German army, not the Soviet troops as you are suggesting.
Then you quoted out of context as well as putting forward a silly hypothesis.
Although it was a major factor, it really wasn't until the Germans had already stopped the advance that the Soviets pushed the back, let alone at all.
The Germans were stopped, they didn't do it volutarily. If nothing else their supply situation forced them to stop, and that had been in a poor state even in the milder weather.
Yes, but the Army got so close to Moscow they could see the spires of the Kremlin.
That allegation comes from a recon unit and can't be substantiated...
To me, that doesn't sound like a troubled advance.
Your claim tells us nothing about the state of German forces who could allegedly see the Kremlin. It could have been two riflemen and a dead horse for all we know.
Yes, there are examples of the Soviets holding out for ages. But that was seen on both sides.
Since only one side was fighting on the defensive, you can't weight them equally. Further the Red Army never had the Luftwaffe dropping them supplies.
And of course your going to see more die from encirclements then retreating
So why did you stereotype the Red Army as doing nothing but retreat in 1941, while the German army apparently had an easy time of it?
thats the whole point of retreating, to evade the enemy.
Actually casualties from retreat would still have been high due to the higher speed of German mechanised spearheads over Soviet divisions.
I meant living of the land as in food and shelter.
Feeding and sheltering army groups isn't feasible. Even Napoleon's armies couldn't do this, contrary to the popular image.
German troops were not supposed to live of the land, and as such didn't know how. Hence why their consistant logistical failure was such a problem for them.
it wasn't the Soviets who stopped the advance, but the Winter and lack of supplies.
Makes perfect sense until you actually read what the Germans said they were stopping the advance for.
Were you aware of the initial delay in the Axis advance on the Southern front? Bryansk pocket?
Hitler originally planned for the invasion to be far earlier.
Prove it... seriously I have never heard of such a thing. If nothing else it would suggest the Nazis had a long term, clearly outlined strategy... any idea would accept.
It was postponed because of the Battle of Britain and the invasion of various Balkan countries.
The invasion of the Balkans took place at a time when the German army couldn't have gone anyway, we already discussed that... by we I mean I explained it to you, while you ignored it.
As for the Battle of Britain, did you realise that Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht units were being shifted East throughout much of the latter stages of that campaign? It completely contradicts that idea that the Battle of Britain would serve as a delay.
That, and the Russians made it to Paris when they battled Napoleon
Hitler didn't fight in Spain during WWII and had the Austrians as allies instead of enemies.
Looking at all the posts on the Battle of Britian, are we to assume that the Germans lost due to ill planning, superior enemy planes and greater tactical odds?
Ill planning certainly was a factor. Superior planes? No, more that the German planes were not suited to the job, but because of their strategy gave the British planes an advantage. Greater tactical odds? Definately.
Further factor in poor strategic aims, techological advantages in other areas, strategic reach etc. and you would be on the right track.
Now on to alyster
Oh huss up if you don't know nothing.
Not going to respond to that... oh, too late.
Don't be so childish. If you don't want to debate, move on.
The ambassador was wishing congradulations to Stalin about taking Berlin and Stalin yelled at him that tzar got to Paris!
...You are ignoring context. Perhaps Stalin was hinting that he wanted a bigger chunk of Germany?
As I pointed out already, Stalin also talked up the significance of his victory. So we have a contridiction... which one is true?
You post too long and pointless things
You are welcome to stop reading and leave at any time if you really think it is "pointless".
Clearly you have never been to Ukrain.
How do you know this exactly? Have you really been, or did you just look out a window?
Try this on for size... More of the war was fought in Russia proper than in the Ukraine, which in turn impacted German tank design. So who cares about the open terrain of the Ukraine (which in reality is cut with hills, dry river beds etc.).
The geographic zone has such mud that half of the day german tanks were stuck half of the day they moved.
It wasn't mud year round. And I want statistics on that 50% bog down...
Even if the Ukraine were nothing more than a perpetual sea of mud, why would this legitimise the use of heavy tanks? They are more likely to sink due to greater weight...