Who defeated Hitler? Soviet Union or the US? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Zagadka
#1094474
Hitler was stupid enough to target the cities instead of the factories, airfields and RADAR stations.

It was *Goering* who was responsible for the horrid state of LW offenses. And however unpleasant and, frankly, evil, he didn't have the best weapons to fight with.

The earlier rockets and V2s were very inaccurate. They had much better chance trying to terrify the civilians into capitulating (not a new tactic). I think we call that "shock and awe" or "rolling thunder" or somesuch these days. The concentration on medium-ranged bombers and lack of fighter support is what lost them the Battle of Britain.
By kami321
#1094543
Ah, but some would argue that the damage done to the USSR, both physical and political, was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union.

One could argue that of course, but i don't see much basis to that argument.
Physical damage to USSR in World War two seemed to be repaired very quickly and USSR emerged as an industrial superpower with GDP even higher than it was before the war and quickly rising further....
Political damage? I'm not sure if I understand what is meant by that. USSR gained a lot of prestige both domestically and internationally as the primary enemy and destroyer of fascism (which was popularly seen as the ultimate evil).. It gained allies in Eastern Europe and Far East. Compare that to its pre-war isolation and the result seems rather positive.

As a result of the war the USSR also was able to reassure its own population that the threat of "aggressive capitalist powers of the west" was a real thing, not just a propaganda invention. Also the war gave the CPSU an excuse and explanation why Communism could not be achieved in 1940s, despite the earlier promises.
By Smilin' Dave
#1094664
Physical damage to USSR in World War two seemed to be repaired very quickly

It took at least five years (including one famine)... that isn't 'very quickly'. And that is just repair of immediate damage. Recovery from depopulation or dealing with the political aftermath (including the empowerment of groups like the OUN and Forest Brothers) took longer to sort out.

and USSR emerged as an industrial superpower with GDP even higher than it was before the war and quickly rising further

But more of the GDP had to be sunk into the military and shoring up the 'buffer zone' of Eastern Europe. In fact, how much of that growth is calculated on the growth of the military industrial complex?

I would also point out that growth might have been at the expense of development (be that in technology or even in political terms).

Political damage? I'm not sure if I understand what is meant by that. USSR gained a lot of prestige both domestically and internationally as the primary enemy and destroyer of fascism (which was popularly seen as the ultimate evil)..

The military also gained a political legitimacy and increasingly could exert pressure on the formulation of the economic plan.

Reformers sidelined again. A more open foreign policy was taken off the table. The psychological and pure stress effect the war had on the Stalin, his politiburo and even subsequent politburos can't be underestimated either. One way to see it is that the Soviet Union post WWII was even more paranoid about invasion than before.

It gained allies in Eastern Europe and Far East.

Allies which ultimately cost the Soviet Union a lot (good will as well as the drain on the economy). China particularly, since it ended up in a state of war with the USSR.

Thrusting the USSR onto the world stage may have inadvertantly cost it more than it could afford in the long term.

Compare that to its pre-war isolation and the result seems rather positive.

The cold war wasn't exactly allowing the Soviet Union into the public arena. Detente was also a return about to the foreign policy before the war.

As a result of the war the USSR also was able to reassure its own population that the threat of "aggressive capitalist powers of the west" was a real thing, not just a propaganda invention.

In the immediate post war it also created an expectation that the government would reduce the pressure of reform.

Also the war gave the CPSU an excuse and explanation why Communism could not be achieved in 1940s, despite the earlier promises.

Which proved purely temporary... by the 1960s they were asking where Communism was all over again.

Anyway, like I said, it is a theory. However it can't be dismissed that easily.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1094687
Hitler defeated himself by allying with Imperial Japan.

Japan attacked the U.S., and Hitler declared war on the U.S., because he thought doing so would prompt Japan to break their treaty with the Soviets and attack the Soviet Union, but they did not.

Japan screwed Germany over, and Hitler had to end up fighting a war against the United States as WELL as a war against Britain and the Soviet Union. It was simply unwinnable. It might have been a reasonable strategy if Japan complied and attacked the Soviet Union to aid Germany in the European theater, but Japan had its own problems with quelling American and Chinese forces.

Smart of Japan, dumb of Germany.
By imagicnation
#1094713
So why were you diagreeing with me exactly?

I'm saying it's the weather that caused the slowing of the German army, not the Soviet troops as you are suggesting. 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.
Before the march on Moscow the Wehrmacht had lost a lot of material and men, enough to cause concern. Further numerous delays were forced due to the threat of strategic flank attacks, undefeated pockets in the rear etc.
In short, it wasn't a trouble free advance at all.

Yes, but the Army got so close to Moscow they could see the spires of the Kremlin. To me, that doesn't sound like a troubled advance.
Not a lot of retreating went on at the fortress city of Brest... I suggest you not fall for easy generalisations.
Besides, by all accounts Soviet troops tended to by lost in 1941 more often in pointless encirclements than because they retreated. STAVKA actually took fairly harsh measures against retreat.

Yes, there are examples of the Soviets holding out for ages. But that was seen on both sides. And of course your going to see more die from encirclements then retreating, thats the whole point of retreating, to evade the enemy. That's like saying statistically, more bread is eaten when people eat it then when they have no bread.
Modern armies can't live off the land. Petrol doesn't grow on trees. Reality is that the German army was unprepared for winter (due largely to arrogance) and had outrun their supply, preventing losses from being recovered properly and winter gear never arriving till it was too late.

I meant living of the land as in food and shelter. And again your proving my point, it wasn't the Soviets who stopped the advance, but the Winter and lack of supplies. Hitler originally planned for the invasion to be far earlier. It was postponed because of the Battle of Britain and the invasion of various Balkan countries.
Not really... at least Napoleon got to Moscow...

That, and the Russians made it to Paris when they battled Napoleon

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?
User avatar
By byosotld
#1094722
You know what's better then the Tiger or the Panther?

The Abrams. Good tank.

Also, ballistic missile submarines are pretty sweet. If you have an exact position on a tank, say a Tiger or Panther, you can relay that information to an Ohio class sub, which can launch an ICBM on the tanks location.

Considering that we have an aging nuclear arsenal, we must consider such responses.
User avatar
By alyster
#1094775
Smilin' dave wrote:In which case I suspect you took the statement out of context. I contrast your quote with Stalin's happyness to let Ike Eisenhower give the Soviets all the credit... which one is correct?


Oh huss up if you don't know nothing. The ambassador was wishing congradulations to Stalin about taking Berlin and Stalin yelled at him that tzar got to Paris! You post too long and pointless things.....

Clearly not.

You do however inadvertantly raise a good point. German heavy tanks were noted for poor reliability, especially over long distances. More probably broke down due to wear and tear than were ever shot down by T34s.


Clearly you have never been to Ukrain. Just huss up. The geographic zone has such mud that half of the day german tanks were stuck half of the day they moved. Russian winter was so harsh that germans were able to keep their soldiers on the look out post for only about 30mins.

Not really... at least Napoleon got to Moscow...


If you had read any books you'd know Napoleon was very much given the city. Which he so very succesfully turned into kaos.


The RAF had always been outnumbered and exhausted... yet they were still inflicting disproportionate losses on the Luftwaffe.


La Mance gave numerous advanges to RAF. RAF was able to keep the fighters in the air so much longer then germans, Luftwaffe had about 10-15mins of fly time over England. RAF pilots who were shot down and survived got a new planes, germans either drowned on their way back or were captured as POWs. Also large ammount of german fighters were Bf-110s which were no match against a single engine fighter.
Germans however didn't have any good intel, no suprise element(radars), no good bombers etc. RAF had no other bath but victory....
Oh and the loses weren't disproportionate. In some phases RAF fighters carried even bigger loses. Just that Germany didn't support luftwaffe enough to replace the loses.
Last edited by alyster on 14 Jan 2007 16:23, edited 2 times in total.
By imagicnation
#1094791
If you had read any books you'd know Napoleon was very much given the city. Which he so very succesfully turned into kaos.

If by 'given the city' you mean there were no soldiers in the city, then I agree with you. I do not, however, agree with you when you say that he sent the city into chaos. The Russians had planned for Napoleon to capture the city so they evacuated everyone but the criminals, then just as Napoleon arrived, the Russians set the criminals free. The crims then went around torching Moscow, forcing the French army to retreat.
La Mance gave numerous advanges to RAF. RAF was able to keep the fighters in the air so much longer then germans, Luftwaffe had about 10-15mins of fly time over England. RAF pilots who were shot down and survived got a new planes, germans either drowned on their way back or were captured as POWs. Also large ammount of german fighters were Bf-110s which were no match against a single engine fighter.
Germans however didn't have any good intel, no suprise element(radars), no good bombers etc. RAF had no other bath but victory....

I'm confused. Why is it, in a discussion about whether the US or USSR, that we seem to be coming to the conclusion that the UK won the war?
By Smilin' Dave
#1095429
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...
By imagicnation
#1095516
I have now researched into the details more and found, yes, the Russian soldiers did, in the Battle for Moscow at least, stop the German troops. However, the point remains that it was still down to German inefficiency in relation to supplies, tactical planning and underestimation of the harsh climate in which her troops were fighting that was the major breaker.
Since only one side was fighting on the defensive, you can't weight them equally.

I was referring to the entire war on both sides in all theatres.
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?

I do apoligise, I was using 'retreat' in a broad context. The Soviet Army lines were broken, armies encircled, complete chaos. Most armies/units/divisions/yada-yada, after being attacked, moved back (aka retreated) to other positions after their first was brocken.
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.

Wikipedia:Some historians such as John Keegan believe that the German invasion of Greece delayed the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union by six weeks. Hitler planned the invasion of the Soviet Union to take place on May 15, 1941 but it was not until June 22, 1941 when the invasion was launched. This delay proved costly as it forced the Axis Powers to fight through the Russian Winter
Battle-Fleet.com: While being initially successful - almost reaching Moscow by early December - it is often proposed that the fatal design flaw of the operation was the postponement from May 15th because Hitler wanted to intervene against an anti-German overthrow in Yugoslavia.
The invasion of the Balkans took place at a time when the German army couldn't have gone anyway, we already discussed that

Where, please quote so I may be a little more enlightened.
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.

What about the fact that Goering thought it would take a couple of days but ended up taking several months. That's pretty delayed.
By Smilin' Dave
#1097156
I have now researched into the details more and found, yes, the Russian soldiers did, in the Battle for Moscow at least, stop the German troops.

Okay, that's a good start.

Now you have to come to terms with the fact that Soviet troops then pushed the German army back, on pretty much every front.

However, the point remains that it was still down to German inefficiency in relation to supplies, tactical planning and underestimation of the harsh climate in which her troops were fighting that was the major breaker.

Yes, but these things alone do not explain what happened. Germany didn't completely defeat itself now did it? Somewhere along the line, the Soviets must have got something right...

I also think it is unfair to blame German tactical planning. On the actual field of battle, German units did well. It is at the large scale that serious problems start to show.

Some historians such as John Keegan believe that the German invasion of Greece delayed the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union by six weeks. Hitler planned the invasion of the Soviet Union to take place on May 15, 1941 but it was not until June 22, 1941 when the invasion was launched. This delay proved costly as it forced the Axis Powers to fight through the Russian Winter

Sure, John Keegan said it, but how does he prove this?

While being initially successful - almost reaching Moscow by early December - it is often proposed that the fatal design flaw of the operation was the postponement from May 15th because Hitler wanted to intervene against an anti-German overthrow in Yugoslavia.

Is a good example of why saying something isn't proof. I have already pointed out to you the problems of this concept, but because battle-fleet.com said it I must be wrong?

I refer you to the works of David Glantz on the topic of Operation Barbarossa and its relation with operations in Yugoslavia (Stumbling Colosus springs to mind, but there are others). You will also find these texts interesting for seeing the extent to which the Red Army won, not just the German army lost.

Where, please quote so I may be a little more enlightened.

See here, which if I'm not mistaken is from this same page
As a result Operation Barbarossa was delayed... right?

No. As the German generals have noted, late rains had turned the roads in Poland/USSR to slush. Further supplies were still being stockpiled at this earlier start date. They couldn't have gone anyway, they were not ready and neither was the weather right.

If anything Greece gave the Germans an opportunity to secure their southern strategic areas, beat up on the British, shift power in the Med etc.


What about the fact that Goering thought it would take a couple of days but ended up taking several months. That's pretty delayed.

I'm guessing Goering was refering to the Battle of Britain. Especially because didn't set grand military strategy and would have had no business commenting on Barbarossa.

So the Battle of Britain might have proven harder than expected, but what you say does not demonstrate that German units were delayed for being used against the Soviet Union.

Even if there had been a delay it might have been in the Wehrmacht's favour, allowing more time to reequip and expand.
By imagicnation
#1097238
Now you have to come to terms with the fact that Soviet troops then pushed the German army back, on pretty much every front.

My point thought is, that if the German plans had succeeded as originally planned, those troops wouldn't have mattered. I have then put forward my reasons for why the German's plans didn't go according to plan.
I also think it is unfair to blame German tactical planning. On the actual field of battle, German units did well. It is at the large scale that serious problems start to show.

Sorry, I thought they were the same thing (not in patronising way)
Sure, John Keegan said it, but how does he prove this?

I do love how you've said that for this point and in the next you suggest your own potentially oppinionated text :lol:
No. As the German generals have noted, late rains had turned the roads in Poland/USSR to slush. Further supplies were still being stockpiled at this earlier start date. They couldn't have gone anyway, they were not ready and neither was the weather right.

I just need some clarifacation on that. You say there that late rains ruined the roads. However I do need to know what you meant by 'at this earlier start date'
So the Battle of Britain might have proven harder than expected, but what you say does not demonstrate that German units were delayed for being used against the Soviet Union.

Hang on, it was you who in a previous post said that the planes were being diverted to the Soviet front. How can you say that units were being taken from the Battle of Britain, which had gone way overtime, but were not delayed? Did the Nazis have some sort of time machine that sent them straight to the Eastern Front?
Even if there had been a delay it might have been in the Wehrmacht's favour, allowing more time to reequip and expand.

Except for the fact Stalin was expecting the attack in 1942 and if the Nazis didn't attack soon, they would have headed straight into a Russian Winter. Hitler would never have allowed for preperation of a winter for his troops; he fanatically thought his Blitzkreig would work so well he wouldn't have to face it.[/i]
User avatar
By Tailz
#1097751
Germany would not have won a prolonged war with Russia, it didn't have the manpower resources to withstand a long war. Thats why Germany needed to have quick victories in Russia before the onset of the Winter season - and their invasion plans were thus prepared for quick thrusts to capture and hold in summer, then dig in for winter. But those were the initial plans and Hitler like always liked to fiddle with plans as he thought he knew best - pity the bohemian corporal didn't know best.

In the end the one thing that defeated Germany was not a problem of material, of quality of troops, but it was the numbers game - on the Russian front the Soviets had massive manpower to call on, and the human steamroller simply swamped the Germans. The Western front for the Germans became a battle to stall the Allies while a decision could be found on the Eastern front - a decision that was resolved in favor of the Russians.

The American and British/Commonwealth contribution to the European battlefield was to split away much needed German material and troops from the Eastern front. Germany could not sustain a war on two large fronts and buckled under the pressure from East and West.

Could the Soviets have won on their own, unlikely, the Germans would have ended up being an Eastern Wall along one of the rivers and more than likely held out against Soviet advances.

Could the Western Allies have defeated Germany on their own, again highly unlikely. Without the second eastern front those troops from the east would have made a great impact on any D-Day landings and more than likely have caused it to stall or fail.

Each could not have won the war on their own against Germany - but together they were simply a steamroller from east and west.

Mr Bill Wrote:
The Soviets didn't even have a semi-automatic rifle!

There was the Avtomaticheskaia Vintovka Simonova (AVS36), introduced in 1936.
Image
Samozariadnyia Vintovka Tokareva (SVT38), introduced in 1938 but removed in 1940 and replaced with the SVT40 which was mainly issued to NCO's. When the Germans captured these rifles they designated them as the Selbstladegewehr 258(r) and 259(r) for reissue to German troops. The gascheck systems were copied into the development of the Gewehr43.
Image

Regarding crew survivability, was the M4 hull welded or riveted? The Lee was notorious for its rivets (for obvious reasons), IIRC. The T-34 was welded, on the other hand.

Depends upon the model and the company that made that part. If I remember correctly some Sherman hulls were cast, some were riveted, and some were welded. I think each had their problems, cast hulls I think were stronger but suffered from metal flaking on the inside in hit by anti-tank guns. The riveted hulls had a problem of the rivet heads becoming projectiles if hit by anti-tank guns, while the welded hulls could have their weld seams split if hit by anti-tank guns - but these were problems faced by all vehicles.
User avatar
By Maksym
#1097874
Germany would not have won a prolonged war with Russia, it didn't have the manpower resources to withstand a long war. Thats why Germany needed to have quick victories in Russia before the onset of the Winter season - and their invasion plans were thus prepared for quick thrusts to capture and hold in summer, then dig in for winter.


You are correct pointing out Germany needed a quick victory. This fact proves the contradiction in the entire thinking for Operation Barborossa. The dream was to drive to the Volga and have a war of racial annihilation for the next century. The Nazi ideology and political agenda could never fuse with military reality.

But those were the initial plans and Hitler like always liked to fiddle with plans as he thought he knew best - pity the bohemian corporal didn't know best.


Hitler is a convenient scapegoat. If anything, Hitler allowed Operation Barborossa to reach its maximum capacity for success by focusing pressure on the flanks. Some of the suggestions of racing towards Moscow and supplying the Panzers by air drops were boyish.

In the end the one thing that defeated Germany was not a problem of material, of quality of troops, but it was the numbers game - on the Russian front the Soviets had massive manpower to call on, and the human steamroller simply swamped the Germans.


Germany has 270 million people and the industrial base of continental Europe. The USSR lost the majority of its coal and oil refineries, plus a considerable amount of manpower.


Could the Soviets have won on their own, unlikely, the Germans would have ended up being an Eastern Wall along one of the rivers and more than likely held out against Soviet advances.


The Germans did attempt the Eastern Wall along the Dneiper River. The end result was a million casualties between August-November 1943 and full retreat. Also, the Germans were in full retreat before the cream of lend-lease aid arrived.
By Shade2
#1097877
Germany has 270 million people and the industrial base of continental Europe.

Germany has 270 milion people ? :roll:
By imagicnation
#1097915
Germany has 270 million people and the industrial base of continental Europe. The USSR lost the majority of its coal and oil refineries, plus a considerable amount of manpower.

Umm.... :?: Doesn't Germany even now only have about 80 million? And even though it is the industrial centre of Europe, the US had an industrial power four times as much as Germany in World War One. Further, after the first war, Germany still wasn't able to achieve the production it had seen in 1913. Even though the Soviets had lost millions of men, by 1943 there were a million more men on the front then when the war began.
User avatar
By Tailz
#1097922
Maksym wrote:
You are correct pointing out Germany needed a quick victory. This fact proves the contradiction in the entire thinking for Operation Barborossa. The dream was to drive to the Volga and have a war of racial annihilation for the next century. The Nazi ideology and political agenda could never fuse with military reality.

I think one of the initial plans raised by one of the General Staff officers had the best plan to succeed, it called for rapid thrusts to capture key locations, followed by a period of withdrawal and consolidation. Which would then be followed by another period of rapid thrusts and withdrawal and consolidation - in effect to slowly take bites out of the USSR. This plan showed promise as it recognized the problems of bringing up supples over long distances and the problems out a rapid thrust outrunning its supply lines (a problem Patton faced many times).

But there was one key word in the plan that Hitler didn't like, withdrawal. To Hitler the German soldier ether fight where he stood, or died where he stood.

Also the Nazi concept of a racial war was totally flawed, in some parts of Russia the Germans were welcomed by the villagers. Having read some of the accounts of the campaign from the Germans it is interesting to read that front line soldiers and officers were often better behaved than the rear area troops that came behind them - which included the SS Death Squads. This is not to say all Wehrmacht troops on the front lines were on their best behavior, but the attitude of the Conquering German seems to have been largely a product of the Rear Area troops who would take over an area after the front line troops have moved on.

Hitler is a convenient scapegoat. If anything, Hitler allowed Operation Barborossa to reach its maximum capacity for success by focusing pressure on the flanks. Some of the suggestions of racing towards Moscow and supplying the Panzers by air drops were boyish.

Hitler can be a convenient scape goat, but considering his position in the military, and his role as head of state - his word carried a lot of weight. Hitler did allow Operation Barborossa to gain critical mass by waiting for units to be relocated from other theaters of war, as well as waiting for some of his new Wunderwaffen to be ready.

As for the success because it was aimed at the flanks, I am not certain, Hitler wanted the oil fields down south and thus he changed the direction of the thrusts into Russia - even Heinz Guderian complained that the objectives were being aimed in the wrong direction as the Panzers were directed south to the oil fields - the pincers were moving away from each other, not getting closer.

Germany has 270 million people and the industrial base of continental Europe. The USSR lost the majority of its coal and oil refineries, plus a considerable amount of manpower.

The German war industry didn't go onto a war footing until late in the war, even in the finial days it was still outputting material although it had been bombed to dust. I've even seen photos of an open air factory in a forest to make the jet powered ME262.

The USSR simply packed up the plants and shiped them by train away from the Germans, the factory workers walking along the sides of the railways were even getting strafed by German fighters.

As for manpower, the Russians pulled in everyone it could get its hands on. Hans von Luck wrote in his book, Panzer Commander, about how he was surprised to see Mongolians in the Soviet army. Siegfried Knappe wrote in his book, Soldat, that he was astounded by the wave attacks of Russian infantry that just kept coming on, getting larger and larger with each wave. And when German troops counter attacked, there was so much Russian artillery that individual artillery guns were fireing at individual German soldiers!

The Germans did attempt the Eastern Wall along the Dneiper River. The end result was a million casualties between August-November 1943 and full retreat. Also, the Germans were in full retreat before the cream of lend-lease aid arrived.

One of the biggest problems was that Hitler kept labeling certain cities or old forts as "Fortresses" which meant that these places had to be held at all costs with no retreat. And the German army expended so much material and manpower in trying to do so.

The German army wanted the freedom to move about and fight where it wanted, but Hitler and his "no retreat" policy put an end to German mobility - it let the Russians pick the field of battle.

Imagicnation wrote:
Umm.... Confused Doesn't Germany even now only have about 80 million? And even though it is the industrial centre of Europe, the US had an industrial power four times as much as Germany in World War One. Further, after the first war, Germany still wasn't able to achieve the production it had seen in 1913. Even though the Soviets had lost millions of men, by 1943 there were a million more men on the front then when the war began.

The biggest difference between American and German production, was the fact the British and Americans were bombing German industry day and night, the American industrial concerns were far from the battlefield and safe with no disruptions from bombing.
Last edited by Tailz on 18 Jan 2007 02:11, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Maksym
#1097928
I’m talking about the manpower for industry under German occupied Europe. Also, manpower for the military was much greater than 80 million when you include the nations allied with Germany and other Fascists organizations that collaborated with the Nazis. The point is the Soviets did not have a manpower advantage in industry and troops, especially when 1942 began.
By Shade2
#1097943
I’m talking about the manpower for industry under German occupied Europe. Also, manpower for the military was much greater than 80 million when you include the nations allied with Germany and other Fascists organizations that collaborated with the Nazis

1-People don't join Nazis, just because they are under occupation. Slave workers were notorious for sabotage and lousy work, not to mention obvious lack of motivation. Likewise the industry and transport in occupied areas was continously sabotaged, which hindered German exploitation. It doesn't equal to German industry.
2-Military of allied nations was of varied quality and motivation, it also cannot be seen as the same of core nation. For example Romanians were known for their lack of motivation after reaching their goals against USSR while Hungarian soldiers sold weapons to Home Army in Poland and supplied it with tactical information.
User avatar
By Tailz
#1097963
Shade2 wrote:
1-People don't join Nazis, just because they are under occupation.

Maksym didn't say that they suddenly over night became card carrying members of the Nazi party - what he is talking about is how their industry was used by the German war industry to suppliment German war industry.

Slave workers were notorious for sabotage and lousy work, not to mention obvious lack of motivation. Likewise the industry and transport in occupied areas was continously sabotaged, which hindered German exploitation. It doesn't equal to German industry.

Thats like saying Skoda's tank production of the Panzer 38(t) does not count towards total German tank strength calculations - even thought the Germans found Skoda's tank works to be rather handy.

2-Military of allied nations was of varied quality and motivation, it also cannot be seen as the same of core nation. For example Romanians were known for their lack of motivation after reaching their goals against USSR while Hungarian soldiers sold weapons to Home Army in Poland and supplied it with tactical information.

Certainly these nations were not as enthusiastic about the whole affair as Germany was, but their industry and military did play their part.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14

... Also, Hamas doesn't need to be eradicated. E[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

If I were a Palestinian living under occupation, […]

I wasn't sure exactly what the liberal response w[…]

The importance of out-breeding

https://external-content.duckduckgo.c[…]