Page 7 of 25 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141517 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 373

Thread: Could The Soviet Union Have Won Against Hitler's Germany Without Allied Help

  1. #91
    Senior Member StukaJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    F34r of closet sniperz
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Another new forum member asked me to post this - I think he is waiting for his account to be authorized... I don't know the whole extent but I'll comply:

    He asks to excuse his English so bear through to the point.

    Zad:
    Hi, I have been reading all those post with lot of interest, and I my opinion I must say that I think that we are forgetting the most importat thing, the surprise factor as the main factor that puts germans at Moscow gates.

    We have been talking about the supplies help that allies send to SU, about war in africa, italian and french fronts, even the effects of allies bomber raids, but in my opinion we have been forgetting the main point, the first germans victories in east front were posible in great part to the fact that Stalin was 200% sure that germans will not attack SU until they will have defeat UK, Stalin was absolutely sure that germans and allies (uk and commonwealth in that phase of the war) will destroy themselves, then a modernized soviet army will defeat the survivors. That made that in the first hours, even days of german invasion, soviet troops didnīt have clear orders of attack or deffend
    of germans attacks, they were not even sure about what the hell was going on, the HQ in Moscow were giving confusing orders, troops were not ready for the war, planes were on the airfields, soldiers were not in the logic places to front a german invasion because Stalin was sure that there will not be
    a german attack yet, and he didnīt want to make germans to think that SU was holding beligerant actitudes.

    but in the exact moment that uk will leave the war, in that moment, Stalin and soviet generals will know, will be 100% sure that they will be the next country to be attacked by germans forces. So, in the moment of german attack, all soviet forces will be placed to fight back that attack,
    soviest planes will be on the air, soviet forces will be in their trenches in the fronters, all country men will be movilized and send to the front lines, all civilians will start to make trenches and garrisons, all fields and roads will be mined, that millions of soldiers that were catch by surprise by the german attack will be aware of the attack, german advance will be stopped or at less
    will be less faster, germans forces will gain less territory, and their losses will be much bigger they will never get close to Moscow so fast, they will be probably stopped inside Ukranian borders, soviet forces will not lost so many men, tanks, guns and planes that if they were cautgh by surprise,
    in that situation, the victory of SU will not be a chance, it will be a certain fact, they will not stop at Berlin, they will continue the fight until conquer the whole Germany, France, and probably the rest of Europe,

    in short, if SU will have to fight alone the germans, they will not be surprised by the attack, they will be waiting their attack, their generals, trops and armys will have clear instructions about what to do and german advance will be soon stopped with much less losses for soviets and a
    much higher number of casualities for germans.

  2. #92
    Banned user Kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the Garden of my Turbulence
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    I'm refering to modern and recently opened old Soviet and KGB archives - I find that data extremely reliable and painstakingly exact.
    That statement is...odd. You "find" that data exact? Your gut says they are correct or what?

    Please, the Soviet state had developed lying to an art form. (Actually, this was inherent to communism from the start. Already old Marx version of dialectic aimed basically at presenting his theories in a way that he could always say afterwards that he had predicted the outcome whatever happened.) Wether it's their description of WWII, or how they presented about everything else like economic performance, the space program, the war in Afghanistan, Tshernobyl - take what you want - it's disinformation to make them look good. Wherever their self-presentation can be checked with knowledge from this different, "western" world, it shows that the Soviets were remarkably uninhibited by reality (as westerners understand the term - don't get into a discussion with a hard-core communist, you might end up hopelessly confused).
    That does not mean that their were no real "neutral", unbiased numbers and statistics, used for administrative purposes. But it is simply impossible to say today how many facts that weren't fitting into the picture of history the Soviet state wanted to paint were destroyed. They were the keepers of their own secrets with unlimited access, after all. It's even impossible to say how much of the Soviet papers we have today is a forgery. Big style falsification of historic facts was by no means beyond the realm of imagination for the Soviet system and the KGB sure knew how to forge Soviet forms.

    For the Soviet state the question wether the UdSSR would have won the war against Germany without American help is no question. The very notion that the Sovietunion could have lost is ridiculous. (Or possibly traitorous - "You are under arrest, Comrade...").
    When socialists fight fascists the fascists lose. Because Socialism is inherently superior. Period. Therefore no help was needed in WWII. And certainly not from decadent, corrupt and capitalist America. End of story.

  3. #93
    Senior Member StukaJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    F34r of closet sniperz
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    You can't tell the difference between the information that is released to the public (aka - press release from Glorious Comrade Stalin) and the exact description of the event, viewed by the select few and locked away in the vault for 60 years, only openned with the fall of the governmental system it represented? Nice retort to something I did not state! You can choose not to trust it, but then you can't provide any better proof nor a source.

    I'm talking about recently (late 90's) de-classified NKVD documents and other archives that were closed with the exception of the privileged few. The carefully guarded archives provide detailed information in accordance to bureaucratic state that former USSR was - a big contrast to hearsay of a few witnesses multiplied by random statistical figures that was Western History until these archives were open.

    But to entertain you, Soviet "Propaganda" paints a more truthful picture of the Eastern Front than Western Historians' portrayal of the same events - my opinion. Like the American History is not full of omissions and falsifications or Uber PanzerWaffe that has been inflated with the help of some "historians".

    When socialists fight fascists the fascists lose. Because Socialism is inherently superior. Period.
    You are an idiot.

    There are dozens of Socialist countries in the World that do well and the citizens have more freedom than Americans or Germans... Any Fashist countries you would like to point me to? What was the good of Fashism? I can point out dozens of life improvements that Socialism brings into Democratic society and is part of about any Democratic Nation today.

    I'm going to disregard that statement as a temporary lapse of judgement.
    Last edited by StukaJr; 02-22-2006 at 09:37 PM.

  4. #94
    Falcons FTW Kilgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Joh Country
    Posts
    14,246

    Default

    Id have to agree wit Kitsune, if you look at some of the alligations made against people caught up in the great purge or the moscow show trials, some of it was so laughable by todays standards, but back then it was taken as gospel.

    I think the soviet tank theorist (similar to Guderian) was denouced by a man who had been dead for 20 years or something equally absurd.

  5. #95
    Senior Member StukaJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    F34r of closet sniperz
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilgor
    Id have to agree wit Kitsune, if you look at some of the alligations made against people caught up in the great purge or the moscow show trials, some of it was so laughable by todays standards, but back then it was taken as gospel.

    I think the soviet tank theorist (similar to Guderian) was denouced by a man who had been dead for 20 years or something equally absurd.
    I'm a little confused that you would take that position - you've posted many of the same documents as proof of your points on here before.

    I'm talking about the Official Classified documents - the kind that get filed in fat binders, put in filing cabinets and then the slow camera pan reveals a werehouse like in the "Raiders of the Lost Arcs". I'm not talking about "Show Trials" or what was released in Kruschov Era - I'm talking about reproductions of Classified documents. The ones I've read were in regards to "Zagraditelniye Battallioni" and performance of NKVD troops in Stalingrad - the papers contained exact reports of men detained, released, sent to straf batallions or summary executed. Comparing the exact reports to the general idea of blood thirsty killers shooting their own men, as portrayed by Western Historians and Hollywood, I see a vast diffirence in Historical truth and fiction.

    There is little proof that the NKVD/KGB Archives are fake - in 1991, I personally saw these archives being attempted to transport out of Moscow during the failed Coup. Quit a bit was destroyed too. Faking werehouse full of 50 year old documents? Not all russians are masochists

  6. #96
    Senior Member StukaJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    F34r of closet sniperz
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minardiau
    Even with Allied help, Germany should of defeated the USSR. It's not a question "could they have defated the USSR" It's "They should of bloody well defeated the USSR"

    The Germans made some really stupid decisions based on idealogical reasons.
    Stalin and his chronies made 10 to 1 bad desissions compared to Hitler and OKW... If anything, Germany had a Good Luck run up until Winter of '41 and then patches of good luck in '42 - Furher's inane desissions should have ended his domination in '39. The diffirence between Stalin and Hitler was that Stalin listened to his commanders at the time of impeding doom and left the desission making to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minardiau
    For starters I'm sure the 40 odd million Ukranians would of thrown their lot in with the Germans in exchange for "independance" even as a puppet state. Same goes with Poland to a lesser extant.
    A lot of them did - a lot of them fought and very bravely. A lot of Poles chose to fight on the side of the Soviets despite ideological reasons - extermination of 1/3 of Poland's population could have been one reason. Western Ukranians did meet Germans as their liberators - many swinging from gallows two weeks later actually still kept the Western Ukraine very pro-German and hard for partisans to oppeate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minardiau
    Keeping 800,000 troops in Norway.
    Cough... British... cough! Should I remind you of importance of Norway? Cough ... Heavy... Cough... Water!

    Quote Originally Posted by Minardiau
    Refusing to issue a strategic defeat at Stalingrad.
    Stalingrad was lost because there were no readily available reserves and Germany relied heavily on weaker Allies to plug the lines - An Army that cannot man its lines should not attack! Stalingrad was far from the first defeat - Moscow, Demyansk and few other smaller precursors began as early as Fall of '41

    Quote Originally Posted by Minardiau
    With or withour Allied help. USSR SHOULD of been defeated.
    I never had much respect for your opinions and now you've added one more. You give wunderwaffe kids a bad name. But then nobody tried to call you a sub-human, call your land "Living Space for the Supperior Race", now did they?

  7. #97
    Banned user Kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the Garden of my Turbulence
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Like the American History is not full of omissions and falsifications or Uber PanzerWaffe that has been inflated with the help of some "historians".
    That is a good example. The Uber-Panzerwaffe. Who has created that image of the gargantuan German Panzerarmy?
    The reality: when the German armed forces invaded the Sovietunion in summer 1941, they had 3500 tanks. Abount 650 of them were Panzer Mk IV, the others Mk III (not very impressive) or Mk II (downright weak).
    The Red Army on the other hand had 24.000 tanks - at least 18.000 in the west. Among them big, heavily armored KV type tanks which German panzers could not destroy and (not in the west) 1650 T-34's, which were superior to any German tank at the time. (German forces would first contact T-34's one and a half months into Barbarossa). Even the Panzer Mk IV version that was used back then could only destroy a T-34 from behind and was inferior in armament and mobility.
    Also, the Soviet forces had four times more artillery and planes than the Germans. Overall their army was larger in manpower, the Red Army numbered around 5 million soldiers (some say 5.5 million), whereas the invading German + auxiliaries force was 3.5 million strong.
    Within the first half year of the war the Soviets would loose around 4.6 million soldiers and nearly all of the tanks, planes and guns mentioned above. This was not achieved through German material superiority (not even through technical one as many came to believe nowadays, Germans were only somewhat ahead with their planes and downright inferior as far as tanks were concerned, as said), but through tactical superiority. In other words, the Red Army had their main force postioned close to the borderline and the Wehrmacht could essentially use their Deep Penetration Tactic to full effect. The Soviet Forces were effectively thrown into confusion and disarray, cut off and surrounded in pockets, then neutralized.
    The point is, it were the Soviets who deliberately helped to create the story of the almighty Panzerwaffe. It explained their devastating defeats in 1941 too well. And the extend of Soviet armament was continously downplayed...it would have just given rise to odd questiond like: "Can it be that the Sovietunion was not such a peaceful state at all?" (For instance, the speed of armament is telling: in 1940 the Soviets build nearly 1000 tanks per month...the Germans 50 to 60. The UdSSR spend forty-two percent of its budget on military stuff without being in a war, far more than Germany who was. For 1942 they planned to have 35.000 tanks ready. For what? Defense? Of course, what else?)
    In the end it often comes down to the classical propaganda version of the massive German invasion force with its countless mighty tanks, against which stood surprised Soviet peasants with improvised equipment. It was not the Germans which created this but the Soviets themselves. Others fell in line. The Nazi juggernaut stomping over Europe explains the German successes quite readily. It also helped the American government to mobilize the American people ("we have to stop them before the Germans invade us as well" and such reasoning)
    The truth is however that Nazi Germany was by no means a super-militarized society, on the contrary. Actually it was a nation largely unprepared for war, with an unexperienced all-new army (which was however completely underestimated by French, British, Polish...and Soviet military experts) and a population that was largely unwilling to go to war.

  8. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StukaJr
    Not to mention, that Heavy German tanks required special tracks while mounted on rail cars. In 1941, T-34's force marched 300-400 kilometers and went directly into battle - in the beginning of the war, many T-34's suffered from transmition failure since its crews were trained on older BT tanks. I believe German tracks would last for 500 kilometers before needing replacement, Soviet tanks 1000-1500 kilometers and Shermans marched as far as 5000 kilometers.
    That was my point exactly.

    This is not a point often brought up when the relative merits of tanks were discussed. Too often, we would just look at the size of the gun and the thickness of the armor, and say that the Tiger and Panther tanks were the best. This was hardly so when we consider that armor warfare is not only about firepower and armor, but about mobility as well!

    To bring the discussion back to the thread, Germany really only had one chance to defeat the Soviet Union, and that was in the summer and autumn of 1941. After that, there was no chance it could accomplish this.

    Op Barbarossa destroyed much of the Red Army's war making capability, gave Germany much of the Soviet Union's important population and industrial centres (with the important exception of Leningrad/St Petersburg and Moscow). Important raw material such as iron ore mines also fell into German hands. Indeed, some estimates that between Jun 1941 and Dec 1941, the Soviet Union lost as much as 80% of its manufacturing capability.

    Having said that, a lot of the loss was not permanent and was self-inflicted. As the German war machine came close, the Soviets tore up many of their factories - including those manufacting tanks and aircraft - and transported them away to the Urals. By spring 1942, these factories (and their personnel) had been re-established and were producing ever more weapons. This was a remarkable feat of organisation and transportation, but rarely mentioned by historians. It was this gigantum move, together with the aid of lend-lease that allowed the Red Army to rapidly rebuild itself in 1942 to finally crush the German armies at Stalingrad.

    I am sympathetic to the Russians on this issue. Too often, the Red Army and the organisational and logistical abilities of the Soviets had been ignored or down played, and that of the Germans overhyped. If you looked at their achievement in the winter of 1941, it is nothing short of remarkable.

  9. #99
    Senior Member Limeyfellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,706

    Default

    The lend lease programme was one of the greatest successes of the war, you must admit that. It put so much money and gold in the coffers it turned the US into a true super power and ended Britain as one.

    In my opinion the Soviet Union would still have won the war against Germany. It would have just taken a little longer.

    They would have gone and taken Japan too for us also. I doubt the US would have had much to do on there but they surrendered before it could happen. At least the nuclear bomb deterred the Soviets to carry on regardless and go around the world.

  10. #100
    Falcons FTW Kilgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Joh Country
    Posts
    14,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StukaJr
    .

    There is little proof that the NKVD/KGB Archives are fake - in 1991, I personally saw these archives being attempted to transport out of Moscow during the failed Coup. Quit a bit was destroyed too. Faking werehouse full of 50 year old documents? Not all russians are masochists
    Yes, how i forgot.

    I have posted numerous times stalins "not one step back order" because the certain people on this board totally deny that blocking units were used.
    In this order he EXPLICITLY orders the use of them. And a order from Stalin was not some abstract concept, it was to be followed to the letter or you risked being shot.

  11. #101
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Serious TR1 is serious.
    Posts
    9,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilgor
    Yes, how i forgot.

    I have posted numerous times stalins "not one step back order" because the certain people on this board totally deny that blocking units were used.
    In this order he EXPLICITLY orders the use of them. And a order from Stalin was not some abstract concept, it was to be followed to the letter or you risked being shot.

    nobody denies that. However, no body with a sane mind can believe that the Red Army was Stalingrad by human wave tactics with no weapons for some of the attackers.

  12. #102
    Senior Member StukaJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    F34r of closet sniperz
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilgor
    Yes, how i forgot.

    I have posted numerous times stalins "not one step back order" because the certain people on this board totally deny that blocking units were used.
    In this order he EXPLICITLY orders the use of them. And a order from Stalin was not some abstract concept, it was to be followed to the letter or you risked being shot.
    Used but not in the effect that some believe. The documents I've read, detail them as NKVD units, sometimes aided by regular frontline troops - their detail included detaining and checking documents of any personel in the rear. Their actions required them to return deserters into their units - similar to any MP unit. Despite what you may think, the summary executions were rare and were only given to officers fleeing from their units and spies. The numbers I've read, would have less than 3-5% of detained AWOL executed, 10-20% sent to Strafbattalions and the rest, back to their units - a stark diffirence between that and NKVD officers shooting soldiers falling back from failed attack. These actions took place tens of miles in the rear btw and they did weed out a lot of saboteurs and deserters.

    In battle for Stalingrad - these same "Blocking Battallions" fought side by side with regular troops - some suffering 90% combat losses in a single week. I believe one of the NKVD divisions even got the name "Stalingradskaya" in 1943 for its actions in the defense of the City. Once again, it's starkly diffirent from what some suggest "Zagraditelniye Otryadi" means.

    As for "Not one Step Back" - German bullet, Russian Bullet, so what's the diffirence. True, some commanders got executed for saving their men, some ran and left their men behind. The hatred for the invaders united the nation a lot better than love for the leader - Russians were never trustworthy of their leaders, my generation or the generation of my Grandmother. It was never as sick as propaganda suggested - Communists represented less than one percent of Russia's population and I'm not even talking about sattelite republic. I've read countless memoirs of the veterans that suggest that Party Doctrine was practically absent from the trenches - just like Nazism was despised by many Axis frontline troops.

  13. #103
    Falcons FTW Kilgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Joh Country
    Posts
    14,246

    Default

    You would have to agree that many men died unfairly because of very cruel coercion practises. Not at all disimilar to when the germans started shooting their own men for "cowardice".

    I am not suggesting at all that soviet soldiers fought only because guns were pointed at their backs, the majority did it because they simply wanted to kill germans. But the fact remains that the often denied methods of the soviet command were extremely bloody.

    And the greatest crime being liberated POW's being taken out of one concentration camp and being thrown in another (gulag)

  14. #104
    The Professor Lokos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,236

    Default

    The return of Lokos, by special request, for one post...

    ***

    No. Because Hitler could of concentrate most of his troops to the east instead of fighting on two fronts.
    In 1941, 90% of Germany's combat capable units were poised to strike on the Eastern Front. Until late 1942 (as the Stalingrad debacle entered its terminal stages), this would remain true. My point is that Hitler DID concentrate most of his troops in the East. It is a myth that, were the Western Allies out of the fight, there would suddenly be no need for garrison troops in France, the Low Countries, Yugoslavia, Greece and Norway. These second line troops were, in any case, very much so unfit for combat duty on the Eastern Front, being short of heavy weapons, training and faced with extensive logistical failure of the OKH on the Ostfront.

    The SU faced anywere from 75% to 60% of the Heer. However there were in Western Europe, at the moment of Normandy landings, 68 german divisions covering the atlantic wall, some of them were elite divs like the 1ss Pz, 22ss Pz, 12ss Pz, 10th ss Pz, 116th Pz, Pz Lehr, etc.
    Foxtrot:

    You know that those divisions were there for purposes of recouperation, having been badly mauled on the EF. German reinforcements, after August 1944 and the subsequent failure of the Ardennes Offensives, flowed East. The entire 6th Panzer Armee (the armoured heart of the strategic reserve) was rerouted into Hungary to cut through to Budapest (which it failed to do). From October 1944 until May 1945, the vast majority of German combat fatalities were accumulated in the East.

    Furthermore, the vast majority of the Waffen SS remained on the Eastern Front throughout the war. The Soviets also had to contend with the satellite forces of Romania, Hungary, Italy and Finland.

    They could use their resouces for making africa corps to create similiar combat force developed to fight in russia. (Hmm Winter corps)
    Two panzer divisions, an infantry division and a light infantry division? The Soviets would have been quaking in their boots, to be sure.

    they can use italian army in eastern front and what is most important they can use italian industry to supply their war machine.
    I could remind you of what happened to the Italian 8th Army on the Eastern Front. And it would still have been the German controlled logistics network that would have had to make use of all that excess industrial might - supplies don't magically transport themselves to forward bases. This same logistical network was unable to fully supply even the hitherto deployed Axis formations on the EF.

    They would have Rommel on eastern front and assuming that he will develop similiar deep encircle tactic
    Are you suggesting that Rommel was the sole practitioner of double envelopment ('deep encirclement' is something out of your imagination)? How, exactly, do you think the Germans won their crushing victories against the SU in 1941? And, just FYI, Rommel was a capable divisional commander. He was already hitting above his weight as a Korps kommandant. How would he have turned the war around, by his lonesome?

    Yes but Africa corps were trained specialy for conditions in Africa and they were an elite unit.
    No, they weren't.

    Especialy that it would alow them to make equipment and gear designed for harsh Russian conditions.
    ?

    The Germans had this equipment before Barbarossa. Long before. They just rarely had enough of it.

    I don't ecpect that they would fight well on Eastern front still they will provide additional fire power.
    And who would be supplying these extra 40 divisions? Would magical sky rails be utilized? Or did you have beam transporters in mind?

    Could the SU won on its own? possibly, but by no means it was an assured thing.
    The only question is: could the SU have won by May 1945 on its own? After the failure of Operation Blau (without heavy LL assistance, or WA involvement in the war itself), I would think that there was little doubt as to the outcome of the conflict. Victory had become utterly impossible for the Germans.

    .. in an ONE FRONT WAR....

    with out "insane Genaral Hitler" the Soviet Union had only one canche: GENERAL WINTER!
    Do the Soviets get to have a 'ONE FRONT WAR', too? What if the Romanians, Hungarians, Finns and Italians didn't send various formations to aid the Germans? What if the Soviets were free to utilize their Far Eastern armies, their Caucaus armies, their Transbaikal armies? Why do these 'what ifs' always seek to skew every possible variable to Germany's favour?

    Youd better believe it. I think when people choose to look at the whole picture there is only one logical outcome really. It may be hard to swallow for some but its fairly obvious.
    The precision of WA bombing left a lot to be desired until well into the terminal phase of the war. The mass destruction of certain German cities did not do as much as one would hope to aid the war effort itself. Production, under Speer, grew by leaps and bounds, month on month, finally reaching its apex in November-December 1944. I do not see the bombing campaign as meritous as you do.

    And would you agree that since the Soviet Union and Stalin won the war, the propaganda state could write history the way it wanted, and any critics crushed by the newly imposed stalinist terror ?
    You make a serious, and a quintessential error - as always, Kilgor. You confuse what the Soviet state told the populace, with what it told itself (in terms of internal documents). Soviet archives are notoriously complete when it comes to WW2. Military science demanded it. The Soviets did not use propagandized versions of events when it came to operational analyses and academic staff training.

    The Nazis would take the SU in a heart beat.
    They failed to do so at the height of their prowess in 1941, with 90% of the combat capable Heer committed to Barbarossa. How, pray tell, would they be able to do so in subsequent years - having incurred ~900,000 casualties (302,495 KIA) in the six months of 1941 alone - as their relative advantages declined?

    The winter is what stopped the Nazis from taking Moscow.
    Indeed? Or perhaps it was the presence of a copious Soviet strategic reserve? Coupled with the effort to eliminate the Kiev cauldron, naturally. Perhaps you should back your opinions up with fact, before offering them up?

    If time would have held off for another summer, I can't see anything other than a fall of Moscow it self.
    Come again? Do you mean, if winter had helf off for a month or two more, or what?

    You're aware that the December 1941 Soviet counteroffensive came to within a hair's breadth of caving in AGC? If Stalin hadn't insisted on a general offensive across the entire front, the war might have turned into a rout for the Germans by February 1942...

    And what makes you think the Germans would have kept any soviets around to fight once they were disarmed?
    Your extreme lack of respect shines through brilliantly. When you don't know a damned thing, just shut your trap. I guess you probably didn't know that, of the 3 million Soviet POWs of 1941, 2 million were dead by mid 1942. That of the Soviet Union's 27 million fatalities, 18 million were civilians killed in the occupied territories.

    That statement is...odd. You "find" that data exact? Your gut says they are correct or what?
    What makes German data correct? Your gut feeling?

    Glantz, House, Wheatcroft and Erickson find Soviet data to roughly correlate directly to German data. Furthermore, the Soviets were not lying to themselves. Why should they have been? These documents were for internal use, not for public consumption.

    Please, the Soviet state had developed lying to an art form. (Actually, this was inherent to communism from the start. Already old Marx version of dialectic aimed basically at presenting his theories in a way that he could always say afterwards that he had predicted the outcome whatever happened.)
    Kitsune, here you are plainly mistaken, without a question of degree.

    The Marxist military science demanded exactness and thoroughness in collating military data for use in tactical, operational and strategic analyses and studies. Kilgor and a number of other posters (yourself included, seemingly) consistently make the mistake of equating Soviet public documents with those never intended to leave the safekeeping of the RKKA and, later, Soviet Army archives. The latter were not censored, nor were they propagandized.

    Refusing to issue a strategic defeat at Stalingrad.
    1) Paulus did not have the fuel to break out, by the time the encirclement was complete.

    2) Manstein did not have the strength to break in, by the time the encirclement was complete.

    3) The two, in dual effort, did not have the means to link up, by the time the encirclement was complete.

    Your suggestion would be to do what, exactly?

    With or withour Allied help. USSR SHOULD of been defeated.
    I unequivocally disagree. The Axis attacked at the best possible time, with the best possible army, had regional allies with significant forces, faced a Red Army bereft of adequate leadership at senior levels and still failed to conclude a war, having achieved numerous strategic victories (debacles for the Soviet Union). The ability of the Soviet state to centralize and translocate means of production, coupled with the pool of twelve million trained reservists that could be drawn upon to generate and regenerate combat formations meant that it was a miracle the Germans did as well as they did, not the other way around.

    The reality: when the German armed forces invaded the Sovietunion in summer 1941, they had 3500 tanks. Abount 650 of them were Panzer Mk IV, the others Mk III (not very impressive) or Mk II (downright weak).
    The Red Army on the other hand had 24.000 tanks - at least 18.000 in the west. Among them big, heavily armored KV type tanks which German panzers could not destroy and (not in the west) 1650 T-34's, which were superior to any German tank at the time. (German forces would first contact T-34's one and a half months into Barbarossa). Even the Panzer Mk IV version that was used back then could only destroy a T-34 from behind and was inferior in armament and mobility.
    Kitsune, I have dealt with this argument in the past. You could not answer my rebuttals then - why are you presenting it once more?

    Lokos

  15. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,678

    Default

    I unequivocally disagree. The Axis attacked at the best possible time, with the best possible army, had regional allies with significant forces, faced a Red Army bereft of adequate leadership at senior levels and still failed to conclude a war, having achieved numerous strategic victories (debacles for the Soviet Union). The ability of the Soviet state to centralize and translocate means of production, coupled with the pool of twelve million trained reservists that could be drawn upon to generate and regenerate combat formations meant that it was a miracle the Germans did as well as they did, not the other way around.
    Well said Lokos. That is the bottomline.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •