Company of Heroes: Eastern Front
Other discussions (Read-Only) => Eastern Front => Topic started by: irik on February 20, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
-
I know yes, it would snow, the Red Army had T34s and Kv tanks when the germans had worse tanks.
-
imho fact that germans fought on two fronts was very bad idea also Hitler become more paranoic and gives strange comands and other things such as that snow, enemy equipment, strategy...
-
Hitler participated a large part in German defeat in WW2. Many stupid orders were made. Like the order not to give the Panzer VI Tiger the sloped armor because it's originated by Soviets, that result in a heavier Tiger (sloped armor mean more protection with less steel). Hitler was not trained to be commander but he like to be, so his commanders cannot do their best. And the order not to withdraw the 6th Army in Stalingrad, that city was already a mess of ruin, with nothing valuable except the word "Stalin" in its name.
The russian winter is also a damn thing. Napoleon lost to it. And imagine you with some 9 kamerad holding waves after waves of Soviet infantry. Soviet outnumbered German in a ridiculous way, their casualties also outnumbered German's but the population even do that in a greater ratio. German stuffs are always good. But a bit like masterpiece, very hard to make, too complicated for mass production. I heard that German tanks give their crews a lot of comfort, since Soviet tanks are narrow, too hot for their crews, not much chance to survive (Soviets designers don't care much about emergency doors), but are ways cheaper, simpler to produce.
-
I thought the tiger was already designed by Henschel before the T-34 was encountered, hence the inspiration for sloping armour in later German tanks (Panther, Tiger II) and there was not time for a new design.
I had never heard Hitler had much to do with its design, he merely chose it over the Porshe model.
-
Way more reasons that I can count. But the most dire mistakes imo;
1. Having a brilliant politician, who, since he was a corporal at one time was fit to be the "Grand Field Marshal"
2. Underestimating the Red Army in combination with overestimating what the German military could do.
3.Hitler's inability to understand logistics and that armies don't just arm, fuel, and feed themselves out of thin air.
4. Hitler's childish ego, in that he did not accept his High Staff's ideas...because they were not his own.
5. Trying to occupy a nation of 170 million people with a 3 million man army.
6. Expecting the war to be over in a matter of weeks....even if Germany was a true superpower and the USSR had no economy, the size of the country alone is a huge obstacle. No winter equipment? Wtf? Hitler read about Napoleon's conquests, admired them, but learned nothing from them.
-
Why did Soviets allmost lose on the Eastern Front? is a better question.
They had more and better tanks than the whole world combined. Guns like ZiS-2, ZiS-3 (germany copied it to make their Pak 7,5cm) 152mm 1937 howitzer were the best in the whole world at that time (1941).
The russian deep battle concept(russian blitzkrieg) was created in early-mid 30s. Russians had strong and mobile mechanized corps, unlike the French.
The MiG-3, Jak-1, Pe-2 and Il2 planes were as good as Me-109, Ju-88 and Ju-87. Il2 was so well armored that even 20mm shells sometimes bounced of it.
The answer is:
1. Winter.
2. In russia oficers were allways shi@#.
3. In the mid 30s when Stalin came to power he send to siberia(if not killed them and send their families) anyone who didnt want to be communist. People didnt want to fight for such a tiran as Stalin.
4. In the mid 30s when hitler was saving economy in his country Stalin started building up his army and military industry. He was selling food for technology (also british tanks - T-26, T-28, T-35, US cristie suspention and many more) while some Soviets died in hunger. Again people didnt want to fight for such a tiran.
In first monts of the war soviets mass deserted from the army becouse they hoped for a better life after Stalin looses the war. There were high hopes for independent Ukraine and baltic states. Some people belived that german tanks have crosses on them becouse their leading a crusade to defeat antichrist Stalin. Some soviets even started to fight their own army.
Monts past and people found out that Hitler and Stalin are the same. Still there were some units (like Ukrainian cossacks) that fought till 1945 alongside germany.
-
Basically, Germany got cocky.
Tried to fight too many countries on multiple fronts, no less.
Couldn't keep up with their industrial strength.
Stretched their army to thin...
Underestimated the enemy.
Overestimated their military might.
etc, etc.
In short, they screwed up.
-
Quite frankly, Hitler did not get the Eastern Front he was hoping for.
Barbarossa's objective was a quick victory over Russia; this was done via the classical Blitzkrieg tactic that worked in France and the Low Countries. The idea was to rapidly blast through into Russia, sieze resources wherever and encircle whole portions of the Soviet army. Whatever stood in their path was blasted, but the main goal was a "bloodless kill"- lopping off the head of the enemy quickly than wearing him down. After such shock and awe, it was hoped that the German forces would sieze Moscow and Russia would capitulate.
The Germans did indeed manage to rapidly smash through Soviet resistance, wipe out whole armies (technically Corps-size formations IIRC). The satellite states like Ukraine and Poland initially welcomed the Germans as liberators from Communist totalitarianism. The purged and antiquidated Red Army crumbled whenever it chose to stand ground, and the average soldier faced death from the advancing enemy or execution for cowardice. If not for a number of seemingly significant but critical factors there was indeed a real chance Barbarossa was successful.
First off, the blitzkrieg was both a success and failure; the army moved so fast that some encircled Soviet formations continued as partisans, disrupting the supply chain and hindering German efforts in securing the vast territory they held. Second, the Germans moved so fast that supply lines were extended making partisan activity far more dangerous than it would be. The Germans may advance far, but once they reach their limit the Blitzkrieg tactic is largely nullified of its important elements- speed shock and mobility. The Germans reached barely reached Moscow but failed to take it, allowing the Soviet leadership to relocate and continue safely. Soviet industry was also packed up and merely moved eastward, far from German bombers. Third, the Germans relied on Blitzkrieg to achieve a quick victory that made anything less a garunteed failure.
Because of the factors of overextended logistics, harassing partisans and the aparent lack of a Soviet collapse, the Germans then had to adjust to these new problems. The SS deployed Einsatzgruppen forces to enforce Nazi ideology, that is, killing Jews, enslaving Slavs for work and general brutality, losing local support and consequently feeding partisan activity. The Russians burned much of what they can't salvage as they retreated, forcing the Germans to rely entirely on supply lines rather than local sources of food and fuel to bolster their ability to continue fighting.
Fourth, since Germany had not anticipated a prolonged Soviet resistance, development of long-range bombers to inflict damage on the war industry was not prioritized. Here we see the same mistake Hitler made in the Battle of Britain: the decision to target cities instead of finishing off the RAF (which ironically was nearly battered and defeated utterly without the Germans realizing it). So when factories packed up and moved out of bomber range, the Soviets were able to continue manufacturing the means to fight the Germans. No matter how many Russian troops and vehicles they killed, more of them came, while the Germans were running themselves into the ground.
So a short summary would be:
-lack of further planning into the posible scenarios of Barbarossa (namely, the chance that campaign goals were not achievable in time such as winning before the onset of winter)
-inabiltiy to maintain logistics
-unwillingness to favourably treat occupied areas thus allowing the enemy to operate behind the lines
-inability to strike the heart Russia that is the war industry- Russian lives and materiel were the blood, but so long as the heart kept beating, Russia wouldn't flounder
-Hitler's unrealistic expectations and demands on the German army to achieve objectives without addressing these issues
In analogy, Germany was continuously punching the air out of Russia, but never stopped it from breathing. Everytime the Germans ran out of steam, the Russians struck back. However valiantly the Germans withstood Russian offensives, every German loss was far more fatal than a Russian one. Russia can afford to be sloppy, while Germany could not.
-
i just wanted to say: WOW!
as far as my knowledge about the Eastern Front goes, you're completely right!
and indeed, the Blitzkrieg depended on speed, denying the opponent's overall capability to fight.
-
Nazi Germany never suffered a defeat until Stalingrad. The rolled over countries in weeks previous to Barbarossa. "Mission Accomplished" was supposedly just in sights.
-
I agree with most others here sayin that Hitler tried to do everything, and He was a good politician just not a good Military leader and many other things at the same time.
And to be honest how many Americans want George W Bush leading the Military & it's operations?
-
I will submit my thoughts.
The german army was not prepared for large scale war, Operation Barbarossa was meant to defeat the soviet union in a short blitzkrieg campaign lasting no longer than a year or two.
By 1943 After the defeat at Stalingrad and Kursk, the manpower of the German military was greatly depleted of it's offensive capabilities, a strong force still but could not match to the millions of Russian troops, and could not replace the colossal losses as Stalingrad and Kursk.
--
What I think Hitler should have done? Deal with Britain first.
When you think about it, Germany had at least an extra million or so troops in the west. If he had dealt with Britain first he could have withdrew up to half of that (around enough to create an entire new army) and sent it to the east. Furthermore, there would not have been much threat from the western countries. By the time Germany had taken Russia, they would have had access to the Nuke. Once they had the Nuke then no country was really in a position to stop them, they would have wiped America out. Not to mention the huge resource bonus Germany could have got from taking Russia, by far enough to create an entire armada of ships, planes and well trained troops in a few years. By far enough to take America.
-
I think that Germany somehow won the war. I don't mean full victory, but... Stalin's army had 20.000 tanks in 1941, and in 1942 he would be ready to attack. Then Germany would be screwed, and in few months time we would have French Soviet Republic, alongside with German, Polish and many others...
German Army was trained, equipped and they surprised Soviets. However they didn't have any intelligence in Soviet Union. They didn't expect that in russia there were so bad roads ( and asphalt one were very rare). Also they lost one month while conquering Jugoslavia and Greece.
-
Quite frankly, Hitler did not get the Eastern Front he was hoping for.
Well tbh Hitler didn't want to fully understand the gravity of the situation of staging the largest offensive ever.. This is made evident by this statement of his "We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down"
Barbarossa's objective was a quick victory over Russia; this was done via the classical Blitzkrieg tactic that worked in France and the Low Countries. The idea was to rapidly blast through into Russia, sieze resources wherever and encircle whole portions of the Soviet army. Whatever stood in their path was blasted, but the main goal was a "bloodless kill"- lopping off the head of the enemy quickly than wearing him down. After such shock and awe, it was hoped that the German forces would sieze Moscow and Russia would capitulate.
True but as any military theorist would tell you, all the other lucrative objectives given in precedence of this made it very difficult to achieve this, hell most modern armies would have difficult with the strain and frictions of war that would come from this. Barbarossa treated Russia as another France and didn't take proper measures to all the "what if" scenarios, flexibility over temporary supremacy a lesson often taught by Clausewitz and others which had been greatly ignored in both WWs, they approached Russia with the same mind set as France imagining a great double envelopment of Moscow after all the side objectives were presumably handled and completed.
The Germans did indeed manage to rapidly smash through Soviet resistance, wipe out whole armies (technically Corps-size formations IIRC). The satellite states like Ukraine and Poland initially welcomed the Germans as liberators from Communist totalitarianism. The purged and antiquidated Red Army crumbled whenever it chose to stand ground, and the average soldier faced death from the advancing enemy or execution for cowardice. If not for a number of seemingly significant but critical factors there was indeed a real chance Barbarossa was successful.
First off, the blitzkrieg was both a success and failure; the army moved so fast that some encircled Soviet formations continued as partisans, disrupting the supply chain and hindering German efforts in securing the vast territory they held. Second, the Germans moved so fast that supply lines were extended making partisan activity far more dangerous than it would be. The Germans may advance far, but once they reach their limit the Blitzkrieg tactic is largely nullified of its important elements- speed shock and mobility. The Germans reached barely reached Moscow but failed to take it, allowing the Soviet leadership to relocate and continue safely. Soviet industry was also packed up and merely moved eastward, far from German bombers. Third, the Germans relied on Blitzkrieg to achieve a quick victory that made anything less a guaranteed failure.
Yes but the main failures of the campaign was ensuring flexibility and speed and priority, without all the other lucrative objectives that were deemed vital, the germans could have just seized the Caucus oil fields and main infrastructure which would then cripple the Russians war machine and efforts, then they could force them into their own terms and not vice versa.
Because of the factors of overextended logistics, harassing partisans and the aparent lack of a Soviet collapse, the Germans then had to adjust to these new problems. The SS deployed Einsatzgruppen forces to enforce Nazi ideology, that is, killing Jews, enslaving Slavs for work and general brutality, losing local support and consequently feeding partisan activity. The Russians burned much of what they can't salvage as they retreated, forcing the Germans to rely entirely on supply lines rather than local sources of food and fuel to bolster their ability to continue fighting.
Logistic failings happened even before the campaign began with the conception of Barbarossa. Like I stated even modern armies today would have difficulty with such scale of partisan activity and such scale especially consider the fact that at the time allot of their aid from the Luftwaffe were stretched from the very west of France and to Africa.
Fourth, since Germany had not anticipated a prolonged Soviet resistance, development of long-range bombers to inflict damage on the war industry was not prioritized. Here we see the same mistake Hitler made in the Battle of Britain: the decision to target cities instead of finishing off the RAF (which ironically was nearly battered and defeated utterly without the Germans realizing it). So when factories packed up and moved out of bomber range, the Soviets were able to continue manufacturing the means to fight the Germans. No matter how many Russian troops and vehicles they killed, more of them came, while the Germans were running themselves into the ground.
Which could have all been avoided had they had clearly defined the objectives and focused on the infrastructure.
So a short summary would be:
-lack of further planning into the posible scenarios of Barbarossa (namely, the chance that campaign goals were not achievable in time such as winning before the onset of winter) Well winter did play a factor but is often time over emphasized as the Russians could also feel its affects and get frostbite no?
-inabiltiy to maintain logistics
Yes and the failure to consolidate forces and manage supply lines.
-unwillingness to favourably treat occupied areas thus allowing the enemy to operate behind the lines
Yes and no certain areas such as the Ukraine meet the new occupation with relief of being freed from Stalins regime..
-inability to strike the heart Russia that is the war industry- Russian lives and materiel were the blood, but so long as the heart kept beating, Russia wouldn't flounder
Well they had planned on doing so but like I have stated because of the way the operation and levied objectives it was not possible to achieve this in the quick and decisive way which Blitzkrieg called for.
-Hitler's unrealistic expectations and demands on the German army to achieve objectives without addressing these issues
Common knowledge, the main reasoning for the operation and all its elaboration was in fact Hitlers strong desire for a shock and awe effect that he determined would crush the allies morale. "When Barbarossa commences, the world will hold its breath and make no comment."
In analogy, Germany was continuously punching the air out of Russia, but never stopped it from breathing. Everytime the Germans ran out of steam, the Russians struck back. However valiantly the Germans withstood Russian offensives, every German loss was far more fatal than a Russian one. Russia can afford to be sloppy, while Germany could not.
Another main reason left out was due to the indecisiveness promoted by Barbarossa it gave the Stalin plenty of time to reorganize and mobilize armies from the far east who should had still been occupied by the Japaneses
-
I'm tired of reading about Ukraine, which is "joyfully greeted the Germans." It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
-
It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
Still doesn't remove the fact that in a large part they were greeted as liberators in circles that yes were mostly in the west but that still doesn't undermine my point.
-
Millions...
-
Billions!
-
Trillions!
-
Quadrillions!
-
Quintillions!
-
Sixathingeillon!
-
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.75 (whatever the scientific term for this number is)
-
Men! What about the forum rules???!!! >:(
P.S. neosdark, За Родину, товарищи, за Сталина!!!! Урааааааааааа!!!!! ;) ::)
-
Your the one that started it...
-
Artemis i know that what u wrote would be the proper war cry, but i don't like playing with the rest of the world so i made my own.
-
Quite frankly, Hitler did not get the Eastern Front he was hoping for.
Barbarossa's objective was a quick victory over Russia; this was done via the classical Blitzkrieg tactic that worked in France and the Low Countries. The idea was to rapidly blast through into Russia, sieze resources wherever and encircle whole portions of the Soviet army. Whatever stood in their path was blasted, but the main goal was a "bloodless kill"- lopping off the head of the enemy quickly than wearing him down. After such shock and awe, it was hoped that the German forces would sieze Moscow and Russia would capitulate.
The Germans did indeed manage to rapidly smash through Soviet resistance, wipe out whole armies (technically Corps-size formations IIRC). The satellite states like Ukraine and Poland initially welcomed the Germans as liberators from Communist totalitarianism. The purged and antiquidated Red Army crumbled whenever it chose to stand ground, and the average soldier faced death from the advancing enemy or execution for cowardice. If not for a number of seemingly significant but critical factors there was indeed a real chance Barbarossa was successful.
First off, the blitzkrieg was both a success and failure; the army moved so fast that some encircled Soviet formations continued as partisans, disrupting the supply chain and hindering German efforts in securing the vast territory they held. Second, the Germans moved so fast that supply lines were extended making partisan activity far more dangerous than it would be. The Germans may advance far, but once they reach their limit the Blitzkrieg tactic is largely nullified of its important elements- speed shock and mobility. The Germans reached barely reached Moscow but failed to take it, allowing the Soviet leadership to relocate and continue safely. Soviet industry was also packed up and merely moved eastward, far from German bombers. Third, the Germans relied on Blitzkrieg to achieve a quick victory that made anything less a garunteed failure.
Because of the factors of overextended logistics, harassing partisans and the aparent lack of a Soviet collapse, the Germans then had to adjust to these new problems. The SS deployed Einsatzgruppen forces to enforce Nazi ideology, that is, killing Jews, enslaving Slavs for work and general brutality, losing local support and consequently feeding partisan activity. The Russians burned much of what they can't salvage as they retreated, forcing the Germans to rely entirely on supply lines rather than local sources of food and fuel to bolster their ability to continue fighting.
Fourth, since Germany had not anticipated a prolonged Soviet resistance, development of long-range bombers to inflict damage on the war industry was not prioritized. Here we see the same mistake Hitler made in the Battle of Britain: the decision to target cities instead of finishing off the RAF (which ironically was nearly battered and defeated utterly without the Germans realizing it). So when factories packed up and moved out of bomber range, the Soviets were able to continue manufacturing the means to fight the Germans. No matter how many Russian troops and vehicles they killed, more of them came, while the Germans were running themselves into the ground.
So a short summary would be:
-lack of further planning into the posible scenarios of Barbarossa (namely, the chance that campaign goals were not achievable in time such as winning before the onset of winter)
-inabiltiy to maintain logistics
-unwillingness to favourably treat occupied areas thus allowing the enemy to operate behind the lines
-inability to strike the heart Russia that is the war industry- Russian lives and materiel were the blood, but so long as the heart kept beating, Russia wouldn't flounder
-Hitler's unrealistic expectations and demands on the German army to achieve objectives without addressing these issues
In analogy, Germany was continuously punching the air out of Russia, but never stopped it from breathing. Everytime the Germans ran out of steam, the Russians struck back. However valiantly the Germans withstood Russian offensives, every German loss was far more fatal than a Russian one. Russia can afford to be sloppy, while Germany could not.
Nail on the head, well done. One factor that has not been mentioned was the poor state of the Wehrmachts intel. It was lackluster in general but one thing they lacked in specific detail was knowledge of the terrain in Russia. This just compounded the logistical nightmares of the Blitzkrieg in Russia. Roads were often inadequate or non-existent when the Germans, relying on old maps and insufficient recon, thought they were there. The spearheads of the elite Panzergruppen often got lost and had to ask for directions or simply got bogged down in the mud when they thought they would be on a road.
-
To the O.P., to stay a little on topic:
I'd recommend watching the doc "The War Of The Century - When Hitler Fought Stalin", if you haven't already. Well, if you had, you probably hadn't started this thread. ;)
It details pretyy much the complete history from their early rise to power via their pre-war rivalry to the inevitable conclusion. It's almost sureal to see how two of the most paranoid homicidal megalomaniacs who ever lived managed to change the world forever at an astounding cost. I guess you can safely say it was always about Stalin and the bolsheviks for Hitler. If he was playing World of Warcraft, the invasion of western Europe was nothing but a sidequest to him to earn some experience points.
Gives a good insight in Hitler's compulsive wish to destroy Stalin and how it basically turned him kind of cooky and made him lose everything. Well, not that he was the epitomy of humble stability in his earlier days, but you get my point. ;)
-
The Russian winnter was very... nasty very cold, an d the military police of the Nazy Germany were realy pack of idiots.
For more detalys investgate Sven Hassel's books. There it's only about the Members of the Heer(german ground army) and theyr's mizerabil (or not) lifes
-
Many of german tank are not produced for extreme winter condition . . .
An extreme winter in soviet are one of couple problem that slow the german blitzkrieg into russian . . .
Another problem is German tank not support with hydraulic track system that applied on T-34 russian tank for extreme battle environment and to avoid break down when passing trough an infantry trench ,the T-34 use hydraulic track system that make the tank faster and more effective in open battle . . .
Btw ,hitler got a battle exp from ww 1 . . .
He fight in western front and injured by murtard gas . . .
Post Merge: July 14, 2010, 09:27:08 AM
Many of german tank are not produced for extreme winter condition . . .
An extreme winter in soviet are one of couple problem that slow the german blitzkrieg into russian . . .
Another problem is German tank not support with hydraulic track system that applied on T-34 russian tank for extreme battle environment and to avoid break down when passing trough an infantry trench ,the T-34 use hydraulic track system that make the tank faster and more effective in open battle . . .
Btw ,hitler got a battle exp from ww 1 . . .
He fight in western front and injured by murtard gas . . .
-
I saw a documentry comparing the winter uniforms of Russia and Germany. When the host wore the Russian uniform he was quite comfortable in extreme cold, wasn't particularly bothered at all. In the German one, he felt like he was going to die after 15 minutes or something. He particularly noted that the boots were absolutely awful and his feet actually needed some medical attention.
-
Its a good thing that he got hurt with musturd gas, other wise all of russia would be full of it. Hitler refused to do gases becuase thats the one thing he knew was wrong.
-
If Hitler never got hurt with Mustard gas he never wouldve been pulled out ...if he had never been pulled out he wouldnt have discovered the German workers party ....if he had never discovered the Germans workers party he wouldnt have become a Political figure....if he never became a political figure he wouldnt have become chancellor...if he had never become Chancellor he wouldnt have tried taking over Europe.
Of course there is the chance he survives the war and starts the cycle anyways but whatever :)
-
I'm tired of reading about Ukraine, which is "joyfully greeted the Germans." It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
Look up the Holodomor. Everyone loathed Stalin. At first, the Germans WERE liberators, until the Einsatzgruppen came in and started killing people. After, both Stalin and Hitler were hated. You can't disregard the fact that at first, Germans WERE liberators.
If you also notice, the Slavic/Soviet Satellite countries changed sides to whoever was winning.
-
I'm tired of reading about Ukraine, which is "joyfully greeted the Germans." It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
Look up the Holodomor. Everyone loathed Stalin. At first, the Germans WERE liberators, until the Einsatzgruppen came in and started killing people. After, both Stalin and Hitler were hated. You can't disregard the fact that at first, Germans WERE liberators.
If you also notice, the Slavic/Soviet Satellite countries changed sides to whoever was winning.
I dont think so. Germans have perhaps been regarded as ''liberators'' by some people, but they werent liberators at all. Think that germans came with ideas like ''lebensraum'', ''untermenschen'' and so! Even the stalinian USSR wasnt that racist. The purpose of german army, was to exterminate the population and to enslave those who resisted. It was a criminal agression, and almost every german soldier was aware of the real purpose of Heer. Thats why immediatly after the beginning of the war, german unit commit atrocities, even before the einsatzgruppen came, and officers never punished them.
So,even if germans were regarded as liberators by some people, they were NOT, even compared to stalin's dictatorship! Russians, ukrainians and other slavic people never liked stalin (after all he was one of the ''best'' dictator ever :P), but they were patriots, or had other motivation to resist.
-
I'm tired of reading about Ukraine, which is "joyfully greeted the Germans." It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
Look up the Holodomor. Everyone loathed Stalin. At first, the Germans WERE liberators, until the Einsatzgruppen came in and started killing people. After, both Stalin and Hitler were hated. You can't disregard the fact that at first, Germans WERE liberators.
If you also notice, the Slavic/Soviet Satellite countries changed sides to whoever was winning.
I dont think so. Germans have perhaps been regarded as ''liberators'' by some people, but they werent liberators at all. Think that germans came with ideas like ''lebensraum'', ''untermenschen'' and so! Even the stalinian USSR wasnt that racist. The purpose of german army, was to exterminate the population and to enslave those who resisted. It was a criminal agression, and almost every german soldier was aware of the real purpose of Heer. Thats why immediatly after the beginning of the war, german unit commit atrocities, even before the einsatzgruppen came, and officers never punished them.
So,even if germans were regarded as liberators by some people, they were NOT, even compared to stalin's dictatorship! Russians, ukrainians and other slavic people never liked stalin (after all he was one of the ''best'' dictator ever :P), but they were patriots, or had other motivation to resist.
German soldiers was punished in many cases for atrocities. Not like the Red Army were no punishment was made for rape and murder.
-
Red_Stinger, I respect your opinions regarding the so-called "liberation" of Eastern Europe, however;
Even the stalinian USSR wasnt that racist.
Wrong. They were even worse. Aside from being Anti-Semitic, the main proponents of Bolshevism were also obsessed with the elimination of social class (i.e. persecution, exile and mass liquidations of the aristocracy/nobility, educated scholars, Officer Corps, ethnic minorities; destruction and looting of cultural artifacts, etc.) and religion (i.e. persecution and exile of religious leaders and clergy, destruction of many places of worship, etc.). These were even far beyond the scope of the Einsatzkommando's operations.
The purpose of german army, was to exterminate the population and to enslave those who resisted. It was a criminal agression, and almost every german soldier was aware of the real purpose of Heer. Thats why immediatly after the beginning of the war, german unit commit atrocities, even before the einsatzgruppen came, and officers never punished them.
Non sequitur. Again, you are talking about specific SD branches such as the Einsatzgruppen or the Gestapo, and quite possibly the Allgemeine-SS stationed in the camps... but definitely not the Wehrmacht or even the Waffen-SS, which were first and foremost front-line combat elements (some did commit war crimes of course, but war crimes are always present in every war, on ALL sides). Most front-line troops had either not heard, had only some vague/incomplete knowledge about, or had full knowledge/awareness but had no real choice nor power to stop the atrocities being committed. In fact, many of the ones who actually knew about the wretched "Barbarossa Order" were executed after the failed assassination attempts against the Führer.
Hitler's statements were mostly rhetorical and focused mostly on the expulsion of "Untermenschen"; in fact, Himmler was the real shadow power behind the Final Solution---bringing it to fruition by actually implementing it on a grand scale using methods which sometimes appalled even the Führer himself. It was Himmler who ultimately decided that the "elimination" of the said undesirables was more expedient than mere "expulsion".
...and as for "punishment": Officers, Wehrmacht Feldgendarmes, and SS-Feldpolizei were often more than happy to court-martial or even shoot Soldaten who went out of line/showed signs of "defeatism".
Just some food for thought. Cheers ;)
Post Merge: July 19, 2010, 03:44:22 AM
I'm tired of reading about Ukraine, which is "joyfully greeted the Germans." It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
Look up the Holodomor. Everyone loathed Stalin. At first, the Germans WERE liberators, until the Einsatzgruppen came in and started killing people. After, both Stalin and Hitler were hated. You can't disregard the fact that at first, Germans WERE liberators.
If you also notice, the Slavic/Soviet Satellite countries changed sides to whoever was winning.
I dont think so. Germans have perhaps been regarded as ''liberators'' by some people, but they werent liberators at all. Think that germans came with ideas like ''lebensraum'', ''untermenschen'' and so! Even the stalinian USSR wasnt that racist. The purpose of german army, was to exterminate the population and to enslave those who resisted. It was a criminal agression, and almost every german soldier was aware of the real purpose of Heer. Thats why immediatly after the beginning of the war, german unit commit atrocities, even before the einsatzgruppen came, and officers never punished them.
So,even if germans were regarded as liberators by some people, they were NOT, even compared to stalin's dictatorship! Russians, ukrainians and other slavic people never liked stalin (after all he was one of the ''best'' dictator ever :P), but they were patriots, or had other motivation to resist.
German soldiers was punished in many cases for atrocities. Not like the Red Army were no punishment was made for rape and murder.
+1 exactly. In fact, many Soviet officers condoned such acts as a retaliation for the misery caused by the war in the Rodina. Soviet troops, the majority of whom had not traveled outside their own country and were unfamiliar with the luxuries which were prevalent in the West, saw it as an opportunity to help themselves to those same luxuries of which they were deprived.
However, the Allies won the war, so many of those among them who had committed crimes were exonerated (except for a few unlucky souls), unlike the Germans.
-
German soldiers was punished in many cases for atrocities. Not like the Red Army were no punishment was made for rape and murder.
Edit: Does sure not apply for every soldier, there was light and shadow on both sides. But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.
-
But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.
Its III Reich - civililized exterminators and Soviets - scum in Poland.
-
Germany was worse then Soveits and I dont feel like expaining why in a 3 paragraph post, so am only doing 2 :D
Any stop being on the poor Nazi side and stop trying to act of smart and a know it all, even though the Soveits did horrible war crimes, it was not as bad as Germany.
Its the truth, look it up before trying to be a smarty on the fourm. Fine, dont belive me, just dont tell everyone you a expert on the history of ww2.
-
Germany was worse then Soveits and I dont feel like expaining why in a 3 paragraph post, so am only doing 2 :D
Any stop being on the poor Nazi side and stop trying to act of smart and a know it all, even though the Soveits did horrible war crimes, it was not as bad as Germany.
Its the truth, look it up before trying to be a smarty on the fourm. Fine, dont belive me, just dont tell everyone you a expert on the history of ww2.
In your 2 paragraphs, you fail to explain why "Germany was worse then Soveits", just clarify that winner writes history. But yeah, especially after the war, soviets soldiers whom had to be punished weren't at all. It was a war, shit happened everywhere, we can't classify neither Germany nor SU to be worse than the other.
-
Germany was worse then Soveits and I dont feel like expaining why in a 3 paragraph post, so am only doing 2 :D
Any stop being on the poor Nazi side and stop trying to act of smart and a know it all, even though the Soveits did horrible war crimes, it was not as bad as Germany.
Its the truth, look it up before trying to be a smarty on the fourm. Fine, dont belive me, just dont tell everyone you a expert on the history of ww2.
I'm on neither side. I've already had my share of skinhead jerks and unapologetic commie douchebags, thank you very much. From an objective point of view, each side was as bad as the other...two failed extremist ideologies trying to cancel each other out, with a lot of innocent civilians caught in the middle. The funny thing is, no matter how many horrible things would happen in every conflict, "moral ascendancy" would always be bestowed on the victors. ;D
Furthermore, I never claimed to be an expert on anything. I was merely offering my two cents. A dissenting opinion, if you will. ;)
-
Werwolf, how can you respect my opinion about the liberation of europe, since I've never tell you about it? And there is no need for sarcastic word like ''so-called'', which prove btw you dont have any respect for my opinion whatever is it.
And yes, Germany was way more racist than stalinist USSR, since the elimination of a class dont necessary need to kill people. However Germany's purpose was to slaughter millions of people, and to create a Europe where all country woulds be a slave of Germany. And if NKVD killed certainly more people than germans in USSR, its probably because they had far more time to do this. Think about this.
Again, germans troops committed atrocities in all the East. Not only Einsatzgruppen. Saying that few war-crimes were committed by germans is Negationism, nothing less ( should I remember you that 20 millions civilians died? oh sure there are victims of soviets troops!). And germans were NEVER being judged by any tribunal, since the whole army was in USSR to kill and enslave everybody. Soviets were rarely judged for war-crimes, but they were, since they didnt fought any ''sub-humans'' or others. And thoses who committed rape in Berlin, right after the victory, were judged and many of them were executed.
Edit: Does sure not apply for every soldier, there was light and shadow on both sides. But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.
And I'm sick of germanophiles who are obliged to glorify germans. For many people in this forum, it seem that germans were noble soldier, who didnt make any atrocities/war-crimes, and who bravely fought the soviet agressor, and who were more brave, more strong... and such. Please, stop this guy, and lets come back to a rationnal discussion. I'm not a germanophobist, I think germany is a great country like many others ( yes, like russia for example!), but some things said here are crazy.
Like you said guys, Cheers, and hope thats not the beginning of a flame war.
-
On topic: Germany lost because of a number of things. First of all, there was the rather interesting use of troop redeployment that Hitler did. Second of all, there was the Russian winter and the accompanying problems (like the oil in certain tanks to freeze up).Than there is the fact that the Germans had to divide their soldiers over three fronts (Atlantic wall, Africa/Italy, and Soviet front). Also, the German industry was being bombed night and day which surely hampered resupplying of the army. Lastly, I'd say that the logistics were hampered enormously firstly by the Russian scorched earth policy, and secondly by the long distances to friendly territory.
As for the whole "Germans were the devil and Soviet soldiers were angels" debate. In my opinion, both were bad, saying that Hitler was way worse than Stalin is in my opinion stupid. It was Stalin who said: "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is just a statistic".
Were the Germans the first to commit atrocities, honestly, I don't know. Even if they were, than the pay back which the soviets gave when they were in Germany isn't any less wrong. The defence that says: "they did it first so it was logical that we did it later even though we knew it was bad" even shows that the standards of both groups were low. I'd even go as far and say that it makes the Soviets slightly worse, since they obviously show that they understand that what they did was bad and they did the same thing as the soldiers which they all claimed to be so bad.
I'd say that so far, I've been able to only find one valid reason to say that Hitler (not the German army) was worse than Stalin (not the Soviet army), and that reason is as follows: Hitler took the killing of people to an industrial level, his death camps were basically factories designed to kill people in the most effective way. As far as I know, Stalin did not have any death factories, just work camps.
As for the Germans being worse than the Soviets or vice versa discussion, if you're talking about the armies, I'd say they are equally bad.
Cheers
-
Werwolf, how can you respect my opinion about the liberation of europe, since I've never tell you about it? And there is no need for sarcastic word like ''so-called'', which prove btw you dont have any respect for my opinion whatever is it.
And yes, Germany was way more racist than stalinist USSR, since the elimination of a class dont necessary need to kill people. However Germany's purpose was to slaughter millions of people, and to create a Europe where all country woulds be a slave of Germany. And if NKVD killed certainly more people than germans in USSR, its probably because they had far more time to do this. Think about this.
Again, germans troops committed atrocities in all the East. Not only Einsatzgruppen. Saying that few war-crimes were committed by germans is Negationism, nothing less ( should I remember you that 20 millions civilians died? oh sure there are victims of soviets troops!). And germans were NEVER being judged by any tribunal, since the whole army was in USSR to kill and enslave everybody. Soviets were rarely judged for war-crimes, but they were, since they didnt fought any ''sub-humans'' or others. And thoses who committed rape in Berlin, right after the victory, were judged and many of them were executed.
Edit: Does sure not apply for every soldier, there was light and shadow on both sides. But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.
And I'm sick of germanophiles who are obliged to glorify germans. For many people in this forum, it seem that germans were noble soldier, who didnt make any atrocities/war-crimes, and who bravely fought the soviet agressor, and who were more brave, more strong... and such. Please, stop this guy, and lets come back to a rationnal discussion. I'm not a germanophobist, I think germany is a great country like many others ( yes, like russia for example!), but some things said here are crazy.
Like you said guys, Cheers, and hope thats not the beginning of a flame war.
Dear Red_Stinger,
it ain't about playing down germany's crimes. On both sides most soldiers were only fighting for their country, but there were also black sheeps on both sides. And in this Forum in my eyes some people(i don't mean specially you, it's more some other people) demonize ALL Germans as murderers and at the same time they only say how great Soviet Union was. I'm not germanophile i only want that things are objective(don't know if this word makes sense in english).
Edit:
Btw it doesn't matter if stalin or hitler killed more. Slaughter of Millions is Slaughter of Millions. I mean if one killed xMillions and the other killed yMillions it doesn't matter that much, in this scale of numbers there is no difference about who was how bad.
-
Werwolf, how can you respect my opinion about the liberation of europe, since I've never tell you about it? And there is no need for sarcastic word like ''so-called'', which prove btw you dont have any respect for my opinion whatever is it.
My apologies if you were offended mate. I meant no disrespect. My use of "so called" was merely because I don't believe that the Germans liberated Europe either, unlike what many people are trying to say (ergo, I wasn't disagreeing with you on that point). And, of course I believe (with good faith) that anything posted in an academic forum also counts as an opinion. ;)
No worries, this is an academic discussion, not a flame war. There is no need to make things too personal...which we scholars of the Law refer to as argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person; i.e. character assassination), according to the lexicon of legal terms in international jurisprudence. And also, making arguments, offering dissenting opinions and constructing counter-rebuttals are actually good mental exercises. On finit toujours par mépriser ceux qui sont trop facilement de notre avis. Non? :D
Saying that few war-crimes were committed by germans is Negationism, nothing less ( should I remember you that 20 millions civilians died? oh sure there are victims of soviets troops!)
We're treading on pretty dangerous ground here...I wasn't negating anything nor was I acting in any capacity as an apologist for Nazi atrocities. This is just a simple CoH forum, not a petition board for the Simon Wiesenthal Center. I was merely trying to balance the argument by not making unfounded hasty generalizations (e.g. "ALL Wehrmacht soldiers wanted to slaughter and occupy Europe"). The Blitzkrieg/occupation in Europe may have been illegal, but it doesn't follow nor prove that EVERYONE who was involved in it was evil...hence, it would be a non sequitur in my book. Just an honest clarification, nothing more. ;)
________________
Okay people, first and foremost, IMHO WW2 wasn't a war of liberation, it was a war of retaliation which gathered steam when the first landser stepped on Polish soil and bombs started falling on Britain. It was a war to reclaim old territory, gain new ones, and to assuage wounded national pride left over after WW1. It was a war based on a pretext created to justify the invasion and occupation of neighboring European states. Therefore, in a sense, the war was illegal given that the evidence (staged attacks and falsified reports)---and the means used (retaliatory invasion) to justify it---was illegal.
However, the means used by the Allies in occupying Europe were also illegal, since as per the Potsdam Conference they willingly allowed the Soviets to hold onto territory they were certainly not entitled to (and which they [Western Allies] certainly weren't in any position to decide for themselves!) ...which was a big mistake on their part, esp. during the Cold War as the majority of those occupied states eventually formed the bulk of the Warsaw Pact. :-\
EDIT: As a matter of fact, America used the same pretext to justify the invasion of Iraq (fake WMD sites and inaccurate/falsified intelligence). They used a modified version of "Lebensraum" to get an iron grip on the oil monopoly AND to eliminate a perceived threat (Saddam Hussein). Hence, the American occupation of Iraq is also illegal, based on the same principle.
________________
That said, despite the fact that Germany was certainly the most advanced nation of its time, it obviously lost due to many factors which precipitated its downfall (I will not elaborate because many others have said this way better than I ever could ;D), but the MAIN reason was also because the Nazis were logistically flawed, despite their "efficiency" in all other aspects. :)
Post Merge: July 18, 2010, 08:38:24 AM
Werwolf, how can you respect my opinion about the liberation of europe, since I've never tell you about it? And there is no need for sarcastic word like ''so-called'', which prove btw you dont have any respect for my opinion whatever is it.
And yes, Germany was way more racist than stalinist USSR, since the elimination of a class dont necessary need to kill people. However Germany's purpose was to slaughter millions of people, and to create a Europe where all country woulds be a slave of Germany. And if NKVD killed certainly more people than germans in USSR, its probably because they had far more time to do this. Think about this.
Again, germans troops committed atrocities in all the East. Not only Einsatzgruppen. Saying that few war-crimes were committed by germans is Negationism, nothing less ( should I remember you that 20 millions civilians died? oh sure there are victims of soviets troops!). And germans were NEVER being judged by any tribunal, since the whole army was in USSR to kill and enslave everybody. Soviets were rarely judged for war-crimes, but they were, since they didnt fought any ''sub-humans'' or others. And thoses who committed rape in Berlin, right after the victory, were judged and many of them were executed.
Edit: Does sure not apply for every soldier, there was light and shadow on both sides. But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.
And I'm sick of germanophiles who are obliged to glorify germans. For many people in this forum, it seem that germans were noble soldier, who didnt make any atrocities/war-crimes, and who bravely fought the soviet agressor, and who were more brave, more strong... and such. Please, stop this guy, and lets come back to a rationnal discussion. I'm not a germanophobist, I think germany is a great country like many others ( yes, like russia for example!), but some things said here are crazy.
Like you said guys, Cheers, and hope thats not the beginning of a flame war.
Dear Red_Stinger,
it ain't about playing down germany's crimes. On both sides most soldiers were only fighting for their country, but there were also black sheeps on both sides. And in this Forum in my eyes some people(i don't mean specially you, it's more some other people) demonize ALL Germans as murderers and at the same time they only say how great Soviet Union was. I'm not germanophile i only want that things are objective(don't know if this word makes sense in english).
Edit:
Btw it doesn't matter if stalin or hitler killed more. Slaughter of Millions is Slaughter of Millions. I mean if one killed xMillions and the other killed yMillions it doesn't matter that much, in this scale of numbers there is no difference about who was how bad.
+1
I agree. Slaughter will always be slaughter, no matter how many times people sugar-coat them, provide excuses and sweep them under the rug.
War is heck.
-
Adolf Hitler was psycho maniac who did not know what he wanted , his ideologies which were derived from emotion inspired weren't practical at all , he was neither a brilliant strategist nor a prudent leader , he and his third reich with men like
hans von groebel
the geinham statpolize or the gestapo cheif(i dont remember his name)
and the SS generals were all mad fanaticists
Their own imprudence led them to the path of devastation , especially on the easter front
Millitary ambitions are allright , but what abt the jews ??? , I dont have to repeat history but this clearly proved that he was a madman with no sense of military strategy , thats why , the third reich were not liberators they were lunatics , and i don't know why the german people believed in him
Ny ways to sum up
1. No sense of military strategy
2. T-34
3 . Underestimation of the soviet climate
as somebody said afore the same mistake was made by napolean in his conquest of russia but hitler didnt realize that he was too proud of "German Engineering"
-
2. T-34
T-34 is overestimated. IT'S JUST A GOOD SOLID TANK but not more.
-
hans von groebel
the geinham statpolize or the gestapo cheif(i dont remember his name)
and the SS generals were all mad fanaticists
Just a few corrections:
- Hans von Gröbel is a fictional character from Codename: Panzers. ;D
- as for the Gestapo Chief(s), you're either referring to SS-Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Polizei Heinrich Müller, or his immediate superior Reinhard Heydrich, Stellvertretender Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia (who was, ironically, a Jew).
- fanaticists >> fanatics.
- geinham statpolize cheif >> Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) Chief.
Cheers, mate ;)
-
What do you mean? Hans von Grobel was really and he PWN.
Hes, like, the bets person in the world! He killed 2000 tounsand men!!! Who are you to think hes not real????
Lol JK
-
I'm sorry abt the spellings, i was feeling a bit sleepy when i wrote this..... ;D
I was actually referring to the German propaganda minister(he was something Hans Von...)
You seem to be German werewolf , otherwise no one makes such fine corrections to the "German spellings" :D :D
and yeah its fanatics , lool, happens to many of us , getting even the most simplest spellings wrong ;D ;D ;D
As to the T-34 it is one of the major reasons of the Germans loosing the war , it made a super power out of Russia later on....
-
You are talking about Joseph Goebbels. Also, one doesn't necessarily need to be German to be able to speak it, just saying :P
As for the T-34, it is indeed overrated. It was crude, it was cramped, half of the gunners lost their arm apparently (I realise it's probably less, but I was just trying to prove a point).
If you want a reason why the T-34 performed so well against German tanks, well, here's one for you: German tanks didn't work in general because the oil in their motors froze.
I'm not trying to say that the T-34 was a rust bucket, but just as not each German is a Jew killing insane nazi, and just as not each Russian is a alcoholic communist, the T-34 wasn't the "z0mg uber god pwwnage tank" (sorry, I suck at slang). Did it outgun the German tanks, yes, to a large degree, it most likely did. Was the T-34 better on the Eastern front than the German tanks, yes, most likely. But here's something to take into consideration. The T-34 for a very large part of the war, fought on own ground. It fought on terrain, that was taken into account when it was designed. Of course it performed well. Also, they were produced in larger numbers (I think) than the German tanks.
What I want to see is a fair test to be done with both tanks. Also, 'historical' arguments like: "but Russia won the war and Germany had no tanks left so the T-34 must have been better" are complete and utter BS.
Sorry if the post is a bit fiery/enthusiastic, I'm a history student and I'm not particularly fond of it when in my opinion, History is being raped.
Cheers
-
Yes u told me that you were a history grad so i respect your opinions but you see Tico , the t-34 was a simple robust and easy to maintain tank , Its armor design was revolutionary and it could be easily produced in large numbers
I'd actually seen an interview of an old panther tank commander(he had practically lost all of his teeth ;D)
He himself confessed that the t-34 was a formidable and excellent tank(his actual words were " i had never had seen a tank like this before , the shell we fired just slipped of the front armor , it was the best tank that we had ever faced")
The t-34 used a old design V-12 from a world war 1 plane and was robust and easy to mantain, whereas the german panther had sophisticated and complicated engineering built into it hence it was prone to breakdowns.
as to my comments on jew killing nazis , i didnt say every german was a jew killing nazi , all i had said that Hitlers ideologies were followed by his men , the german millitary or the wehrmacht were soldiers they simply followed orders to believe or not to believe was not their concern
And as to werewolf i read abt his post on the German army patches, no one knows abt the ranks and patches so much unless he has seen it with his eyes
Cheers!!
-
Indeed, it was robust, easy to maintain and easy to mass produce, but does that instantly mean that it's a good tank?
I will of course agree with you that the T-34 had a revolutionary design, still though, fire at it in the right place and you can still crack it wide open (the place where the turret connects to the hull for example). Also, please note that your tank commander says: "the best tank we ever faced". This does not by definition mean that it's a good tank.
As for using a V12 engine from a World war I plane, I find that hard to believe, mostly because of the fact that mechanised flight was still a new thing and that to the best of my knowledge, planes were equiped with rotary engines, definately nog V12's.
Also, I didn't mean to say that you said that all Germans are jew killing nazi's. I just used it as a way of saying that people in general generalise stuff and that this, in my opinion, is also done with the T-34 :P
Cheers
-
"Whatever" ::) ::) , as to the engine thing i saw it on TV , thts why i tell you and now tht you say i remember i saw it on discovery too , if u ever get a chance to see tht particular show again , just confirm it
-
I just have to ask, AbhMkh; Why do you always comment on somone's nationality?
-
Hey no offense dude , i'm just a bit inquisitive , thats it nothing more ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
How is everyone here a history gratuate or expert etc.?
-
lol seeme , no tico had mentioned in a post afore tht he had studied history in college
-
I'd actually seen an interview of an old panther tank commander(he had practically lost all of his teeth ;D)
He himself confessed that the t-34 was a formidable and excellent tank(his actual words were " i had never had seen a tank like this before , the shell we fired just slipped of the front armor , it was the best tank that we had ever faced")
The t-34 used a old design V-12 from a world war 1 plane and was robust and easy to mantain, whereas the german panther had sophisticated and complicated engineering built into it hence it was prone to breakdowns.
I find this all hard to believe. Not only is the Panther commander story far-fetched (Panthers outperformed T-34s in every conceivable way) but the specs are wrong: it was the V-2 engine, not the V-12, and the V-2 was not used in any WW1 planes.
Tico's absolutely right, the T-34 had a lot of very good ideas (sloped armor among them) but it was not the be-all end-all tank, and certainly not the one reason the Soviets reigned supreme at the end of the war.
-
I'd actually seen an interview of an old panther tank commander(he had practically lost all of his teeth ;D)
He himself confessed that the t-34 was a formidable and excellent tank(his actual words were " i had never had seen a tank like this before , the shell we fired just slipped of the front armor , it was the best tank that we had ever faced")
The t-34 used a old design V-12 from a world war 1 plane and was robust and easy to mantain, whereas the german panther had sophisticated and complicated engineering built into it hence it was prone to breakdowns.
I find this all hard to believe. Not only is the Panther commander story far-fetched (Panthers outperformed T-34s in every conceivable way) but the specs are wrong: it was the V-2 engine, not the V-12, and the V-2 was not used in any WW1 planes.
Tico's absolutely right, the T-34 had a lot of very good ideas (sloped armor among them) but it was not the be-all end-all tank, and certainly not the one reason the Soviets reigned supreme at the end of the war.
+1
(Off topic: BTW AbhMkh, I replied to your earlier post re: the patches on the other thread. Cheers ;) )
-
Sure T-34's armor, gun and in later war the reliability were very good but it had bad sights so shots over a long distance were not accurate, it had no radio(that's a huge disadvantage), and only a 4 man crew(another huge disadvantage)
So we have a tank which was sure insane good in 41' but with the upgunning of the Mark IV it lost it's superiority
-
just to remind everyone talking about this topic, and those who might join us later on: the question, why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front, must be answered, and discussed, nothing more.... just make your own topic about it. the German forces had both major advantages and disadvantages, just like the Soviets. Although I'd like to say politics had nothing to do with the outcome, its the last thing i find true about the eastern front. however, what happend is unforgivable, and should never been forgotten.... nor underestimated, or changed. what happend on the Eastern Front, why it happend, and how it happend, that's our topic, not only the way both sides treated the civilians in the occupied territories.
just to make it clear: both Germans and Soviets didn't treated the civilians properly, the way i see it: whatever you say, whatever you do, these things happend, and even if you say one side committed the greatest crimes, both sides still committed crimes against humanity.
-
just to remind everyone talking about this topic, and those who might join us later on: the question, why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front, must be answered, and discussed, nothing more.... just make your own topic about it. the German forces had both major advantages and disadvantages, just like the Soviets. Although I'd like to say politics had nothing to do with the outcome, its the last thing i find true about the eastern front. however, what happend is unforgivable, and should never been forgotten.... nor underestimated, or changed. what happend on the Eastern Front, why it happend, and how it happend, that's our topic, not only the way both sides treated the civilians in the occupied territories.
just to make it clear: both Germans and Soviets didn't treated the civilians properly, the way i see it: whatever you say, whatever you do, these things happend, and even if you say one side committed the greatest crimes, both sides still committed crimes against humanity.
I spy with my little eye German apologism. The Holocaust was a far, far worse crime than the Soviet purges. You must factor in the motive - to this end, the concentrated removal of an entire ethnic group on the grounds of racial supremacy is dangerous in deed as well as thought. Calculated evil is worse than mindless evil, by and far.
-
Thank you Crezth! If it wasnt for my lack of word knowelge, I would of said the same thing!
+1
-
There comes a program on discovery channel : worlds greatest
so in the series worlds greatest tanks : t-34 is ranked no 4
It shows all in detail abt the t-34 , i think it might be available for download as well on torrentz im not sure of that
"evidence is far better than speculations"
And yes we are offtopic
so i conclude the main reason tht germany lost the war was due to "Herr Adolf Hitler"
cheers :) :)
-
Seeme, I do not claim to be an expert or anything like that, but I do study history at University level, so I like to read a lot about history and such. Also, the show "words greatest" if it is the one I think you mean, creates this list based on a rather small amount of people's opinions.
Also, it only shows basic specs, like "armour thickness" how thick it is is nice, but it also matters what kind of metal it is.
Anyway, on topic, I think that Germany lost the war because of a number of factors, to name a few: the Russian winter, the scorched earth policy, and Hitler's lunatic strategies.
Cheers
-
Tico, I wasent trying to offend you in anyway, and if I have, am sorry.
How can the T-34 be 4th??? With todays modern tanks?
I think the show meant The second world war, right?
-
I wasn't offended, sorry if I came across at being so :P
Also, yes, that's one of the problems that I have with that show in conjunction with its name. What it basically show, is a number of good or revolutionary tanks (in terms of design etc.).
Cheers
-
Yes the program includes both ww2 and modern tanks as well
first is the leopard tank
second is Abram tank
third is some Israeli tank
4th is T-34(the program mentions tht t-34 was what turned soviet russia from an agrarian economy to an industrial superpower)
-
That Israeli tank is the Merkava tank.
I disagree with the statement about the T-34, it wasn't like they build the tanks, and all of a sudden they had the factories to build them. They already had factories, it's just that they used a great many of them for T-production. So, ok, the the T-34 may have contributed to some production ideas, but saying that it is the reason that Russia turned into an industrial superpower, is overdoing it.
Anyway, hugely off-topic, let's get back to the question of this topic.
-
That cant be right...
-
Really german tanks such as the panther and tiger tanks could destroy MOST Allied tanks with one (tiger ) or two (panther) direct shots although there were many design flaws in the german tanks such as complexity and engine failure. Since the allied tanks were faster the axis tanks where out flanked and out produced.
Do not really on this information Ive just picked it up.
-
German tanks had an clear advantage in firepower and amourthickness, however... as said (many times, i think) before, the allied tanks did not rely on individual strength. Their balanced designs combined with their 'quantity for quality' doctrines enabled them to deploy overwhelming numbers of tanks against the German panzer's, and forcing the German forces to use all of their available resources and manpower, until they were no longer able to keep up with demands.
And to provide an answer to the T-34 discussion:
The T-34's design, although suffering from great flaws which mainly affected the crew, and therefore the T-34's overall efficiency in battle, included the usage of sloped armour and Christie's suspension, it was a revolutionary design and a great leap in the history of the tank.
Long story, much to discuss... i love to think about many things of WW2... but never try to tell me: 'it would have been better if (...)' or 'i know it was better to (...)
history is about the things the way they happended, please don't doubt their importance or impact.
-
the communism mean't mass production, and high numbers. us supplies saved the day many times and wherm was exhausted, loosing experimented soldiers and being too elitists on tech solutions ...
ussr was just too huge for wherm, thanks to mud winter and numerous people
let's play tripleA guys for the " what if" :-)
-
the communism mean't mass production, and high numbers. us supplies saved the day many times and wherm was exhausted, loosing experimented soldiers and being too elitists on tech solutions ...
ussr was just too huge for wherm, thanks to mud winter and numerous people
let's play tripleA guys for the " what if" :-)
And by this you mean? I can't understand what your trying to say, mabey you could try to explain it to me?
-
He said that Soviet Russia was able a bump out massive waves of infantry and high amounts of military equipment.
Additionally, Russia was supported by the 'Lend and Lease-Act' which especially in 1942/43 helped to compensate the massive losses Red Army suffered in the early stage of war.
The Wehrmacht on the other side didn't have that many resources and kept loosing their strength, the experienced veteran soldiers. Unlike USSR, they relied on the often quoted "quality over quantity"-doctrine, a thing which could never function against a war vs Russia.
Also the harsh condition, like the russian winter and the mud stopped the Wehrmachts assault.
I hope I get what vietlord originally said. :)
On the discussion: Seriously, I think the question shouldn't be why the Third Reich lost the war but rather why the whole war took 6 years. Why did Germany's leaders tried to stop the war in 1943, when it was clear that the can't gain a military victory? Why did they even start the war against Russia? Why were douzens of german cities bombed and burned to the ground?
That are just a few questions, which are in my opinion by far more interesting than asking why Germany lost on the Eastern Front. Just take a map and compare the sizes...
-
My guess is that if Hitler had been a sane man and not started the war with Russia, history would be a lot different. However, if Hitler had been a sane man perhaps he would not have been as successful in the beginning.
-
If he was sane he wouldn't have started a huge war with everyone, well maybe Austria.
-
why would he start a war with his own country?
-
He didn't start a war, he annexed it.
-
The problem of the Eastern Front was, or at least a large part of the main problem, it's vast size and the climate of the region. Also, Hitler expected the entire Red Army's force to collapse by using Blitzkrieg tactics. This worked very well in the early stages, and it seemed to become yet another great victory for Germany, but combined with the Russian winter and the German equipment, which wasn't suited for combat during such cold conditions in any way, the offense soon grounded to an halt. During that time, the Red Army could finally replace it's losses suffered earlier.
The Germans, still on the offense, successfully fought their way towards Moscow (although they were stopped about 30 km from the city itself, lol).
At this time, the German supply-lines had reached their limits, and the weakened forces were unable to mount an final attack to take Moscow. From this point onwards, the Russian troops, now with the fresh elite divisions from Siberia, the German back, once and for all.
-
Fun fact I learned:
One of the reasons Germany didn't reach Moscow was when they we heading towards the city a large part of the Middle group headed south to capture soviet prisoners, with was a mistake because it took supplies and time away. In the modern time, you don't win wars by taking prisoners.
-
Where did you learn of that?
-
I heard it on TV then did some research.
-
Seeme
In September 41 group of armies should not grasp the center captured as you speak, and to finish an environment of two hundred thousand trd army in Kyiv region that most not to get to a trap between
ps
sorry for my english -use translater
-
1st of all, I have no idea what you meant.
2nd of all, 2 or 4 divisions went, not all of it.
-
If they did send a few divisions away to capture some Russians, it would've made the situation only worse, the divisions whom held positions near to Moscow were, like most of the forces at that time, exhausted and not ready for the winter.
-
Exactly, that's what am trying to say, the Germans made a mistake.
-
And it only worsened the situation for them :P
-
Yes, mistakes tend to do that.
-
1.) Germany didn't have enough resources to supply the offensive in the East.
2.) Germany ain't prepared to launch the 'Blitzkrieg' during Winter.
3.) Hitler fought too many fronts for his Armed Forces to manage , hold and secure since 1943. Just like North Africa, Italy, Russia and the Balkans.
4.) Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow were not the only situation why the Ostheer lost. Since the start of Barbarossa, Germany and the Soviet Union, made several encirclements, pockets of resistance and delayed objectives. This is one of the factors why the Ostheer delayed their attack on Moscow, thus, losing enough tanks, supplies and men on the Army Group Center.
5.) Hitler focused on three different and incredibly huge fronts, some of his General's suggestions were to take on Kiev first, then Moscow, and also signing a peace treaty to Britain first. (This is why the Luftwaffe weakened on all fronts)
And for my 'personal' reason why Germany lost on the East, it's because of his obsession to Stalin, basically, Hitler's quite a douche taking a not-so-important city with Stalin's name on it and cost him 1 army. Why not call him Obsessed?
-
And for my 'personal' reason why Germany lost on the East, it's because of his obsession to Stalin, basically, Hitler's quite a douche taking a not-so-important city with Stalin's name on it and cost him 1 army. Why not call him Obsessed?
First of all, Stalingrad was a major city at that time with a major river port if I'm not mistaken, calling it "not-so-important" is rather far from the truth in my opinion.
Secondly, Stalingrad's position on the Volga river enabled the holder of the city to have great control over whatever was transported over it.
Thirdly, you have to think beyond mere economical targets here. Losing a city which bears the name of your leader isn't good for moral.
Cheers
-
I think it comes down more to Hitler's OBSESSION with Stalingrad. Not allowing the army to fall back screwed him over.
-
well, Stalingrad was not at all an major strategically important goal, however, it was for both Hitler and Stalin THE icon of the soviet nation, and became an obsession for both, particularly for Hitler.
and about the winter, Barbarossa had to decide the war against Russia before the winter started, the entire operation was never intended to be fought during the winter, a very important fact to remember.
-
Stalingrad was indeed a important position. The city contained a lot of armament industry, and was controling the main road to caucasus. If the city had fall, soviets would have lost their control over the entire south of USSR. Moreover, germans initially wanted the city to be able to pass the Volga reliably, and then push even forward into soviet lines.
-
Stalingrad wasn't the key to the Caucasus. The city was important because of the transport shipping up and down the Volga and the fact it's capture would've secured the entrance to the Caucasus.
-
If i had to explain why Germany failed in the Eastern Front, it was that Hitler didn't want to admit that his army, no matter how advance he made it sound, was actually a overhyped, army that fueled on victories against armies that only had Calvary. If you think someone like Stalin was going to send horses against a tank army, then you were mistaken.
Now, when it came to equipment, Russia actually out did the Germans in most catergories, lets take a look.
-Il-2 Strumovik vs Ju-87/HS-219. How is this even a fair fight. The Il-2 was better armed, was more armored, and was more mobile than either German CAS plane.
-T-34 vs Panzer4/Panther tank. This is a matter of numbers versus quality. In peace, you can make the most elborate tank in the world, with loing lasting parts and what not. But if it isn't going to live that long, then you might as well give up. The Russians made millions of T-34, cause it was cheap and easy to build. And it wasn't half bad.
-Is-2/KV tanks vs Tiger tanks: Well, this was only a matter of time. If you compare the tanks, the Kv lost out to the Tiger only because it was a easy target to kill. But the IS-2 made it clear that tanks guns would decide the battle. An Is-2's cannon may not be as far ranged as the Tiger's gun, but it has more explosive power, which means it could break gun barrels, destroy enemy fortification, and render any army obselte fast.
-Katyusha vs German Artillery: This is a matter of doctrine. the Germans were focused on powerful shells landing accurately on targets. the problem is that anyone who ever worked with artillery knows that your optimal window of opportunity is 30 seconds. That isn't a long time. So what the Russians did was they made the cheap trucks, fitted a ton of rockets on them, and had them all fire on one position at once. This led to destroying entire lines of Germans.
So next time someone said, Germany should have won due to weapons, tell them to do their research on the Russian War machine.
Ps: The Germans could have defeated the US and Britain, but only just.
-
you're right with the major part of your post, but Germany DID face powerfull tanks before Barbarossa, the French tanks were superior when Germany attacked France. it's the combination of superior tactics and (at least) very capable equipment, combined with some luck (can't help it, has to be said), which gave the Germans those earlier victories.
but for most of your post, your quite right indeed:)
-
Just my two cents.
Something that can't be overlooked is that when Hitler decided to invade the USSR, the maps they used for planning were innacurate. Many of what were shown to be major highways on the map, were little more than barely servicable dirt paths in reality.
Also, the entire invasion was planned to take only 9 weeks. Fighting in winter was not even considered, so when winter rolled around, German soldiers had to resort to scavanging winter clothes from Soviet corpses.
-
Reasons why the Germans lost on the Eastern Front and eventually the entirety of the Second World War:
1) The very reliable and well-rounded T-34. Produced on such a large scale, outnumbered the Germans greatly.
Watch this:
Top Ten Tanks- # 1: The T-34 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6gFmuRlE#noexternalembed)
2) Russians and General Winter, bad idea. Finns, Germans, Swedes, French have all failed trying to tame Russia.
3) German overconfidence, and underestimation of the Soviet forces.
4) Lots of tactical errors like the loss of the 6th Army at Stalingrad, the lack of winter equipment, and the very stupid failure at Kursk in 1943.
5) The sheer numbers and resources of the Red Army.
6) Germany waging a war against Great Britain which has the largest empire, the US which is the industrial and economic superpower of the world, and the Soviet Union with the worlds largest army.
-
Previous poster had it right.
The basic facts are they were in a hopeless numbers game because of Hilter. Their only hope would have been to maintain peace with one of the main allies. If they had not attacked the Soviets, they could have concentrated on other fronts while keeping a keen watch on Stalin. Stalin may even have aided them for a time, but he was just like Hitler, in that they could not help themselves when it came to critical thinking. Decisions were made out of rage and paranoia, rather than logic presented by their generals. Germany had one social advantage when facing the other allies, the allied leaders placed a higher value on having troops survive to fight again. Hitler and Stalin could not have cared less about their people(IMO) it was all about their legacy. The US economic ability made it inevitable that Germany would lose, because the axis did not have the capability to attack/harass it. The endless supply of war materials would bury any enemy, no matter the quality of their people or weapons. None of the main combatants were pushovers.
-
The Russian winnter was very... nasty very cold, an d the military police of the Nazy Germany were realy pack of idiots.
For more detalys investgate Sven Hassel's books. There it's only about the Members of the Heer(german ground army) and theyr's mizerabil (or not) lifes
Sven hassel is a fraud, in case you didn't know.
Fun books, but deeply inaccurate - eg a Penal battalion is issued with Tiger tanks?? yeah, RIGHT.
-
I agree with Red Baron and EasyWay91, your saying it right, guys!:D
And although not completely correct, redtail666 is partly right about the issue with the two leaders. ;D
Headlock, kinda strange reply, nvm. ???
-
Germany was defeated because of massive allied aid given to the USSR, a long with having to fight on several fronts. The soviet union has mythologized the eastern front and the western world has bought the cool aid. Without the US, the Soviet Union could have hoped for a stalemate at best, because Stalin's interference with the Red Army greatly hampered it's fighting capabilities. Soviet figures, which are rigged to begin with, show statistics greatly in favor of Germany. The wermacht was a far more competant than the red army. this is despite Germany starting the war with outdated, inferior equipment and armor, and hardly using a fraction of it's industrial capacity until the second half of the war. despite hitler being a homocidal monster, he was much more competant than stalin, and not an inept maniac until the very end of the war. documentaries always blame germany's defeat on hitler, which is slightly true, but not very true. John Mosier is probably the best historian that corrects the war's record. My opinion could be wrong, but since I do not accept doctored soviet data or narrative, I doubt my opinion will change. Given the circumstances, Russia, not communism, could have crushed germany. THe soviet union was almost dismembered because it chose socialism. Without being propped up continuously by the allies, hitler's evil empire may have triumphed.
-
I'm not at all agreeing with you, but that's alright, but be warned, your now saying stuff which cannot be proven to be true nor false, be cautious with what your saying, bro.
-
Truly so.
Besides, saying "I ignore some point of view, because it's all crap" sounds odd. As if you are saying, that all SU history books are completely made up of lies, while some western are so true and so much closer to reality.
Ever considered that every side did and does put a lot of effort in making propaganda?
-
apologies, we're drifting off, although this is at least for a part related to the topic.
-
well I could be wrong. But the figures often don't make sense. I will try to find out which it was. THere was a battle where the Soviet data claims 88,000 dead russians, 55,000 dead Germans an 500 destroyed German tanks. THis seems completely impossible. No tank losses for the Red Army? Krushev himself made some statements implying that the soviet figures were cooked. Like I said, given the very bad economic and industrial decisions tat Germany made, I couldn't possibly imagine Germany having any hope against a Czarist, or White Government in place. Any sort of German victory against that would still be in question if Germany made equivalent decisions.
All of the sides promoted propaganda, but the USSR was the only one to do so with actual data, and it is the only one to still be believed today. There was no lock down on published information in Britain, the US, or West Germany. This is why the US can account for nearly all of it's casualties and actual product produced in factories. The USSR either had, Russia still has, them on lock down, or they simply do not exist, and the data available is estimated, or made up, probably something inbetween those two.
-
The USSR data are very hard to call 'real', mostly because of the propaganda, but not all data was false.
-
All of the sides promoted propaganda, but the USSR was the only one to do so with actual data, and it is the only one to still be believed today.
AFAIK, according to official media reports during the war in Vietnam US forces had the entire population of Vietnam killed for at least three times. :)
-
Peh, In WW2 the only propaganda in American was Buggs Bunny hitting Hitler in the head with a mallet :P
-
Peh, In WW2 the only propaganda in American was Buggs Bunny hitting Hitler in the head with a mallet :P
Actually, not... See some anti japanese american war films of the time. I recall several, where those were actually called "monkeys".
-
I saw those too. And the disturbing thing is...Bugs Bunny was the one who was saying that stuff lol
-
This is not about Vietnam people, stick to the topic, please.
-
If y'all don't mind me dropping in - The answer to your question is quite simple: Germany lost because Russia won.
-
yes, and we're discussing what kind of things Germany ... up, and how the USSR won, despite their losses :P
-
Well, i think the Japanese are partly to blame...
-
Oh? Could you be so kind to share the 'why' with us, please? :)
-
Well, i'm no history buff, but as far as i know, the Japanese attacked Hawaii and Alaska, bringing America into the war. And the Americans decided to deal with the Germans before the Japanese. So the Germans were fighting a tough enemy on the Western as well as the Eastern front, stretching their resources pretty thin...
Correct me if i'm wrong on any of that...
-
Actually US defeated both countries nearly at the same time. Germany 5th May, Japan 2nd September. They didn't had to even move troops from Europe.
Japanese did well choosing not to attack USSR. Two reasons: 1. How can navy-based army attack Siberia?? Ships would be useful only in attacking Sachalin or Kamchatka. Nothing more. Also Japanese theory of liberation the "enslaved" nations of Indonesia. And create area of influence there.
-
Yeah, i realize the Allies defeated Japan shortly after Germany. But from what i've seen in the many documentaries i have watched, the Americans decided to focus more on the Germans than the Japanese. Also, i think it was the Russians who ultimately defeated Germany...
-
Yeah, i realize the Allies defeated Japan shortly after Germany. But from what i've seen in the many documentaries i have watched, the Americans decided to focus more on the Germans than the Japanese.
Just read into the quantity of US men, fighting each side, add to it the time, when americans arrived to europe, don't forget when US started fighting Japan, and see, that you're all wrong...
EDIT: removed that part about russians,- it doesn't go with my comment ;D
-
Could you please be more specific?
-
Could you please be more specific?
C'mon man, just search through the net on the points, I listed above... Don't be all that lazy.
I'd be more broad here, but I just don't really have a hell lot of time now, nor do I have a desire to play a history teacher ;)
-
Dude, i wouldn't know how to do that. Practically all my knowledge of W.W.II comes from documentaries i borrowed from the library...
-
Well, i'm no history buff, but as far as i know, the Japanese attacked Hawaii and Alaska, bringing America into the war. And the Americans decided to deal with the Germans before the Japanese. So the Germans were fighting a tough enemy on the Western as well as the Eastern front, stretching their resources pretty thin...
Correct me if i'm wrong on any of that...
Somewhat, as Hitler sided with the Japanese and declared War on the US, which wasn't a necessity as Japan had nothing to offer for the German War effort.
-
Well, i'm no history buff, but as far as i know, the Japanese attacked Hawaii and Alaska, bringing America into the war. And the Americans decided to deal with the Germans before the Japanese. So the Germans were fighting a tough enemy on the Western as well as the Eastern front, stretching their resources pretty thin...
Correct me if i'm wrong on any of that...
Somewhat, as Hitler sided with the Japanese and declared War on the US, which wasn't a necessity as Japan had nothing to offer for the German War effort.
OMG! ::)
Hitler declared war on the US because of it's material support of the enemies of the reich, and japan was simply seen as a useful ally, that could distract US from war in europe and make it spend their resources elsewhere.
-
Well, i'm no history buff, but as far as i know, the Japanese attacked Hawaii and Alaska, bringing America into the war. And the Americans decided to deal with the Germans before the Japanese. So the Germans were fighting a tough enemy on the Western as well as the Eastern front, stretching their resources pretty thin...
Correct me if i'm wrong on any of that...
Somewhat, as Hitler sided with the Japanese and declared War on the US, which wasn't a necessity as Japan had nothing to offer for the German War effort.
OMG! ::)
Hitler declared war on the US because of it's material support of the enemies of the reich, and japan was simply seen as a useful ally, that could distract US from war in europe and make it spend their resources elsewhere.
That doesn't hold any water. The war against Japan would've detracted from the US supplies to Europe and the Soviets without Hitler declaring war on the US.
Edit: Maybe you misunderstand me: I'm saying Germany going to War with the US wasn't necessary and a strategic mistake.
-
I edited my post to make it clearer. To explain: cephalos said the US entered the War in Europe because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. That is incorrect and that is what my statements were referring to.
-
Well, US was doing definitely everything necessary and even more to be considered an enemy of the reich.
Besides (though it's not relevant to the topic, so accept my apologies here), it seems, that Japan was simply forced by the circumstances, ultimately absolutely created by the US alone, to make war on the latter. It appears, that Roosevelt intentionally led this country straight into the war in the pacific, aiming at the spread of US overall influence in that particular region, and in the world , after all. But this is just a point of view (shared by many historians though), and a topic for yet another broad discussion, so don't really mind me saying that.
-
Well sure they were. But having them (merely) supply your enemies is still better than having them supply your enemies, bomb you and invade your country ;)
But to realize that required an openess to reality and input from the general staff that Hitler did not possess.
-
Their part in the war against the reich was rather puny (that would be IMO here) 'till the very D-day.
-
Well Puny is taking it to the extreme. I don't think one should undervalue all the supplies the Brits and the Soviets received. They didn't pay such a huge price in blood, but without them victory would've come a lot more costly to the soviets (If, Gasp!, at all. But you'll probably try to stone me for that ;) ).
-
Dude, i wouldn't know how to do that. Practically all my knowledge of W.W.II comes from documentaries i borrowed from the library...
duuude, you got to be kidding? ever heard of google or wikipedia?
-
Well Puny is taking it to the extreme. I don't think one should undervalue all the supplies the Brits and the Soviets received. They didn't pay such a huge price in blood, but without them victory would've come a lot more costly to the soviets (If, Gasp!, at all. But you'll probably try to stone me for that ;) ).
I meant the fighting part, since we were talking about germany declaring war on the US, because it was strongly supporting the enemies of the riech. So the above notice of yours sinks into the cold void ;)
-
Yeah, Google comes in handy sometimes (emphasis on "sometimes"...). Don't know much about that "Wikipedia" thing, though.
-
Well Puny is taking it to the extreme. I don't think one should undervalue all the supplies the Brits and the Soviets received. They didn't pay such a huge price in blood, but without them victory would've come a lot more costly to the soviets (If, Gasp!, at all. But you'll probably try to stone me for that ;) ).
I meant the fighting part, since we were talking about germany declaring war on the US, because it was strongly supporting the enemies of the riech. So the above notice of yours sinks into the cold void ;)
I wasn't aware there was such a thing as a cold void for posts.
Plus, wars aren't only fought by fighting ;-)
-
I wonder what would happen if Japan chose to invade the USSR from the East at the height of the German invasion from the West...
Would the USSR still be able to hold off both fronts? If these guys actually won, we might be living in an extremely racist world now.
I never understood why Hitler decided to join with Japan. I thought he hated all non-whites?
-
I never understood why Hitler decided to join with Japan. I thought he hated all non-whites?
It's a bit more complicated than that. If you were an Aryan (German, Austrian, Dutchman, Scandinavian etc.) than you were ok, if you were a Russian, you definately weren't ok. Now Italians are by no means what Hitler calls "Aryans", but they were his allies. Hitler may not have been a very practical man in a lot of instances, but in this one I think he was practical, Japan was by far the most powerfull nation in the far east, and Italy had a good foothold in Africa.
Japans ideal (to rid Asia of unfair overrulers) was somewhat in line with that of Hitler, to get rid of the yoke of Versailles and return Germany to it's old former glory.
-
Yeah, no doubt Hitler would have turned on the Japanese and Italians eventually, just like the Russians.
-
I wonder what would happen if Japan chose to invade the USSR from the East at the height of the German invasion from the West...
Would the USSR still be able to hold off both fronts? If these guys actually won, we might be living in an extremely racist world now.
I never understood why Hitler decided to join with Japan. I thought he hated all non-whites?
The Soviets surely would have lost. Stalin refused to leave Moscow, so he would have been captured or found dead. After that, the Soviet Union probably would have capitulated, as there were no more reserves to stop the advance into Rostov and the Caucasus.
-
The defeat of the USSR would've been more likely with Japan joining in, but Japan already attacked the USSR before, and lost all the time (fun fact: it was the fighting against Japan which helped so to speak 'shape' General Zhukov 8)) Germany was the country which had to deliver the biggest en then decisive blow, not any other nation.:P
-
Basically Germany lost on the Eastern front for a number of reasons.
Most of them stem from the leadership at the time being poor.
(ie Hitler Goering)
The attack on Stalingrad was a step too far with an army stripped of it's panzers and fuel, but then telling the same army to stay in it's position once surrounded was catastrophic.
Lack of proper winter equipment for two years running!
Russia being so damn huuge mean the German supply routes were huge and innefficient.
The Russians made a titanic effort to relocate their populations and build a new industrial area behind lines. Russians were particularly good at masking huge armies from German observers.
With the Majority of the German airforce beaten in the battle of Britain it lost air superiority, allowing Russian airfighters to harass German forces from the skies later on.
German treatment of the local populations was ridiculously harsh and genocidal, which meant a large proportion of their occupied territories had lots of partisan activity.
The Kursk offensive was the turning point, the German forces did not use their favourite tactic well (blitzkrieg) and the Russians had plenty of time to prepare the battlefield with lots of mines and defenses.
Germany tried to eat more than it could chew, and declaring war on USA was incredibly stupid, in fact if the Germans had not done so the USA would have probably not intervened in Europe, or if it had it would have been too late.
-
That covers it, i suppose ;)
-
No, sorry. Kursk was in no way the turning point on the Eastern Front. It was already over long before that. Had Kursk succeeded Germany would by no means have won the war, all that would have happened would be that maybe(And I'll stress that) the defeat would not have been as catastrophic. OTOH it could have been even more catastrophic with the US nuking German cities instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-
Hitler wouldn't have won the war no matter how you slice it, the only reason he got as far as he did was because the Soveits weren't ready.
-
Well, if i stick to basic options, Germany could've won the war if:
1: the German nuclear project finished before the US.
2: if Hitler actually listened to his officers! :P
-
Number 1- Defiantly
Number 2- Would of helped a bunch, but 3 Million men vs 15+Million....
As I said before, the only reason he got that far was because he the Soviets weren't ready. On 1943, They had the Army better off in equipment then the Germans. They had no chance from the start.
The Reich Scared away a lot of scientist at the beginning of the war (Including Albert Einstein). If Hitler didn't blame everything on the Jews, maybe half of the scientist would of stayed there, and they would of got it done faster.
-
They may have scared a lot of scientist away, but Germany was still superior with certain technologies until the very end of the war, take rockets, for example......
damn I'm not in the mood to talk a lot right now :-X
-
may i remind everyone that this is a discussion about why Germany lost on the eastern front? And the 'they lost because they were fu...ng idiots' story might be partly right, it isn't going to explain everything, so please try to talk about something a little more serious.
Now, can we all please get back to the topic?
-
Stay on topic guys. You want to argue politics, go somewhere else.
-
Yep, I'm sorry, the argument was finished as far as I know anyway by now.
-
Huh? We weren't off topic?
-
Tico and I we having a rather educated conversation on socialism that was finished but the powers that be would rather have us reiterate the last 10 pages of "coz hitl0r was teh b00n,lulz" for the sake of being on-topic.
Back to the topic: I allege that Germany lost the War on the Eastern Front because they did not kill enough mans and their sandbags couldn't stop the russians going other ways.
-
To be honest, I couldn't give a shit even if this topic sank into a discussion about rice crispy treats, but Political discussion is against forum rules. It leads to flame wars, spouting opinionated biased bullshit and people getting their feelings shat on. We'd rather not moderate such discussion, this is not a debate forum.
-
You could say the same about religion...
But anyway, getting back on topic:
Aren't Rice Crispies great?
-
To be honest, I couldn't give a shit even if this topic sank into a discussion about rice crispy treats, but Political discussion is against forum rules. It leads to flame wars, spouting opinionated biased bullshit and people getting their feelings shat on. We'd rather not moderate such discussion.
True, but...
Isn't this topic definitely doomed to sink into the flame-war by default?
I mean, it's as if someone would make a topic like "Why did SU win the war against the third reich?" - it (the discussion that is to follow) is all about politics, since I doubt there's a lot of people, whose opinions on any such matter have any right to be seriously taken into account, 'cause mostly those are amateur bullshit, really.
-
I don't think discussing W.W.II politics is much of a problem, since it could very well be part of this discussion. But our own political/religious opinions could easily lead to off-topic arguments...
-
I agree with Pariah, politics are part of this discussion, but we should leave our own opinions out, guys.
-
Could we behave in a civil way??
-
Tico and I we having a rather educated conversation on socialism that was finished but the powers that be would rather have us reiterate the last 10 pages of "coz hitl0r was teh b00n,lulz" for the sake of being on-topic.
Back to the topic: I allege that Germany lost the War on the Eastern Front because they did not kill enough mans and their sandbags couldn't stop the russians going other ways.
But their sandbags made their mans go green at least.
-
Ok guys, topic locked. I've said time and time again, go talk politics somewhere else.
Further topics will be locked an posts deleted