Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

When should Hitler have attacked Russia?

Discussion in 'Eastern Europe October 1939 to February 1943' started by Kai-Petri, Oct 18, 2003.

  1. Pvt.Liam

    Pvt.Liam Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    of*
     
  2. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    Liam,

    Technology was not as influential as you think. If the Germans had the best machine guns, the armies they fought also had machine guns and those also were deadly. Germany had very good tanks and the western Allies suffered because of it, but the Germans lost in the end. The Germans developed heavily-armed combat jets and they lost. Why? Because the technological gap between them and their enemies was not big enough.

    Unless the USAAF and the RAF would have been equipped with bi-planes instead of Mustangs and Spitfires, the Me-262 wouldn't have changed anything.

    Unless technological gaps are quite big, there's no way technology can change the general strategic situation.

    The USSR and Germany were not Allies. Just two mortal enemies who had another enemy in common and that only didn't attack each other while they rearmed and grew stronger.
     
  3. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    The Glanz figures for Ostfront:

    Red Army ( incl Red Army air force )

    Total Armed Forces Losses, June 1941- May 1945

    Killed in battle or died during evacuation: 5,187,190

    Mortally wounded (and died later): 1,100,327

    Died of illness (non-battle): 541,920

    Missing in action or captured: 4,455,620

    Non-mortal wounds: 15,205,592

    Non-mortal illness and frostbite: 3,138,556

    Total Armed Forces Casualties: 29,629,205

    http://www.fireonthevolga.com/Red%20Army%20casualties,%201941-1945.html

    Unfortunately he does not make that precise figures on the German dead but some points:

    Total Wehrmacht losses in WW2
    11,135,500
    incl wounded 6,035,000


    Total German armed forces losses
    13,488,000
    of these 10,758,000 fell over or were taken prisoner in the east

    -----------

    On 1945 (1 January to 30th April )Glanz says the Germans´losses were 2 million of which 2/3 in the eastern front. I suppose this includes all possibilities: MIA, KIA etc etc.

    ----------

    OK, I was wrong. It was approx 1:3 according to Glanz on men.( I think one can only take the "all losses" scenario as other ways to count it are too tough )
     
  4. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    890
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    Imagine what the figures would be if Russia was more coordinated in it's strategy and applied in 41 what it did in late 42, coordinated withdrawals or at least fighting retreats. What would the numbers be then?
     
  5. AndyW

    AndyW Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    1
    "all losses" is a difficult number, because of the WIA, sick and POW's included.

    I prefer "irrevocable losses".

    Cheers,
     
  6. FramerT

    FramerT Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    37
    I'll try to watch me spelling next time!The chess"thing"?Was'nt meant as an insult.You were comparing Hitler to Rook takes Queen or what ever! Now did'nt Japan march through China,a country 10-20 times as big?Had the US on it's heels too in '41-42.I can agree that I'd rather be on the trigger side of an MG-42 or 50 cal. than the receiving side!
     
  7. Pvt.Liam

    Pvt.Liam Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    With the chess thing, I was trying to bring a metaphor.
    So why do they attack? Being on the defense they would be ready, build extra trenches, ready the artillery, put more sandbags up.. Remember, they are going AWAY from their country where food and other supplies had to be taken with them. Also remember that a field of men will lose more lives than the men in the trenches and on MG42's...

    I am not just talking about arms, weaponry ETC. I am talking about the invention of the atomic bomb. That shut up the Japanese, and that was created by technology. The very computer you are typing on these forums, technology.
    Electricity, technology.
    Television, technology.
    A lot of things are made from technology. Without a lot of things WW2 would be fought on horseback and with swords. Technology has made an impact.

    The one thing is, there were no winners of World War 2...
     
  8. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    Because of something called strategic initiative and more favourable strategic position as well as tactical momentum.

    It's rather useless to see 1941 from your nice suburban house of 2004... :rolleyes:


    I never have denied the impact technology has had. Withou it we would still be living in caves... But we were talking about 'Barbarossa' and the Great Patriotic War, where technology —in general— made the conflict so big and brutal but tactical war-technology by itself didn't give any side an overwhelming advantage.

    Now you're playing the pacifist philosopher? :rolleyes:
     
  9. AndyW

    AndyW Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    1
    Can we shorten this?

    Easy: Because they thought they will win and can harvest the gains of victory.


    And they preferred this over the possibility to wait for a (not) possible attack on them, giving away the initiative to the other side.

    Certainly they couldn't exploit Russia's resources without having conquered her, nor they could fight a war in the west with their Army deployed on the east waiting for the other side to attack (or not).

    So again, we could now formidable argue about the question if we know now that they couldn't or clould win, but this is completely irrelevant with regard to the basic historic fact that at the time of the decision the Germans thought they could win.

    Otherwise you could also argue "Why did the Germans invade Poland, they should have known that they lose the resulting war".

    Cheers,
     
  10. Pvt.Liam

    Pvt.Liam Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    There were no winners as everyone probably lost a brother, cousin, Father Mother, Etc. If you call that winning then that's just pathetic... But back to the main point.

    It is very true about "Russia vs Germany", the East flank, that technology wasn't so much important, but like you said, we'd all have our caves now, and therefore it'd be Russia vs. Germany with cute little sticks....
    But truthfully, I was talking about the War as a whole, the submarines, planes, gliders, the atomic bomb Etc.

    So is that why most people chose to attack again on this forum, and lose again? This was my first point of all this, which got drifted.
     
  11. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Well, Stalin to me seems like a winner here though:

    He got rid of nasty political enemies by sending them to die in war.

    He got a strong hold of Europe by gaining land.

    He got a strong army.

    He got rid of Hitler.

    His status and dictatorship got stronger through war.

    The industry of Russia took huge steps during the war.
     
  12. Pvt.Liam

    Pvt.Liam Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    STALIN was a winner, but the citizens of Russia weren't winners...
     
  13. camz

    camz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    1
    The second front was also about stoping Starlin from taking control of the whole of Europe as i remeber France had quite a communist party.
    An Iron curtain over the whole of Europe would of been quite a BAD thing.
     
  14. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Portugal
    Evidence, please?
     
  15. TheRedBaron

    TheRedBaron Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    30
    This woulld be the Second Front that Stalin begged the Allies for since 1942...

    As for evidence what about that madman Patton? He was all set for taking on the Russians... ;)
     
  16. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Portugal
    That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking by Patton, not SHAEF strategy. I guess we discussed all this to exhaustion in What IF - USSR x USA.
     
  17. TheRedBaron

    TheRedBaron Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    30
    Za,

    I was being sarcastic! :D
     
  18. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Portugal
    Oooooooh, how devious of you!
     

Share This Page