Germans doomed to failure

"IMO what ruined the Germans was just the huge mass of land they had to conquere, weather and the masses of soldiers they had to go through."


Says it all really.

 

This is precisely why I always try to refer to "Ost Front" as "Soviet Russia" and not just Russia; as many backrounds took up arms for the cause. We must not forget however; that people of that time from the Soviet Union referred to themselves as Russian. Even today, it is not uncommon to stumble upon an individual from Kazakhstan, uzbekistan or Ukraine that will respond with "im Russian", when asked where they are from, believe me, I have friends from that part of the globe

 

Stalin was always feared, but after the war he was definately more loved than he was in 37'

 

Yes i agree with that.

 

For men like Stalin and Hitler to be feared is one and the same as being respected. Niether dictator really trusted their generals but as time passed Stalin would still listen to his, as Hitler began to tune them out.

 

Firstly, I would like to remind all and sundry of the title of this thread...."Germans doomed to failure".
With this is mind, I thought the comparison to other military adventures that were doomed from the outset, like Japan's hopes of victory at the outset of the Pacific War, and the Confederate military position at the beginning of the ACW were both good comparisons when viewed as doomed from the get-go.

Secondly, this thread is clearly showing that we, as westerners, still have a broad misunderstanding of just what the Soviet people had to put up with to defeat "Barbarossa". Post-war, the Western Allied powers downplayed the role of these very factors in the mutual victory, for obvious political reasons. Today, echoes of this 'attitude' are made evident by these very misunderstandings, still held by Western people in general, of which more than one western poster on this thread alone has made plain.. Post war, I'm sure the Soviets resented this to a very large degree. The West didn't exactly make the Soviets feel 'part of the club'. I'm also sure it came as a surprise to the Soviet people as a whole to have the Lions share of the laurels of victory snatched away at the last moment after all their sacrifices. It should be plain for all to see that the greater majority of the action in World War 2 was fought inside Russian borders, and it was there the back of Das Heer was broken beyond repair. The sheer scale of the fighting dwarfed all other fronts combined. The pace of events here was significantly faster than most other areas of action. The numbers of civilians involved or permanently on the move as a result of events also dwarfed other fronts, (with the possible exception of China).

No wonder the Cold War eventuated.

Lastly, I'm not sure I can label Josef Stalin as something other than a tyrant, but, another label that certainly would apply to him, IMHO, would be "Good Political War Leader".

The performance of many of his favourite Generals, however, was highly vin ordinaire.

 

I don't agree with you here...when did the Russians ever want to be part of the club? And how is it that the laurels of victory were snatched away from them?

 

Well, actually what you wrote above is to me just one person's opinion. I personally don't cling to any age old generalizations about the Soviet contribution to Allied victory in WWII, but I do keep things in what I would consider proper perspective based on proportionate contribution to said victory.
As far as the post war period and how the Cold War came about, that has more to do the agenda that the Soviets had before WWII even started, how WWII started and how the Soviets never changed their aggressive agenda after the war.

 

Ahh...I see the victors of the Cold War seek to blame the entire conflict on the losing side.

I suppose thats the privelage of victory.

And not all of what I wrote is pure opinion. There are some solid facts to support it. I'm just not writing it from a "winner of the Cold War" perspective.

 

About the Western misunderstanding of the war in the East,the "fault" (if one can use that term) is twofold .
After the war,the western historians(not known for being linguists) were waiting (historians are lazy) for the translation of a German book about the war in the east,of course,this German book was treating the war from a German POV,and,if there was some absurdity in the book (it was PC to blame Hitler for all),well,every one would parroting this absurdity .If one will add that the UK historians had not much sympathy for the SU(between june 1940 and june 1941,the UK was figthing,wile the SU was doing business with Germany),the basis for the misunderstanding was laid . The SU :was also to blame:how could the west have a better understanding of the war in the east,if no reliable Soviet sources were available? The number of Russian speaking and understanding people in the West was (and is) ...very limited and what was translated was (is ?) propaganda-crack .
There has been ,AFAICS,on to day ,no English translation published of a reliable history,from a Soviet POV of the war in the east .
Thus,instead of whining,maybe doing some trouble to give the people in the west some usefull information .

 

The Russians signed a seperate peace in WWI which was seen by many in the west as a betrayal, the Western Powers later intervened in the Russian Civil War (creating a serious undercurrent of a lack of trust of the west by the Soviets) and then the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis and enabled them to safely invade Poland because it suited Soviet self interests. The Soviets then invaded Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Luthuania while threatening Romania. So....as I stated, the Soviet agenda in the post-war was no different than the pre-war period. It was aggressive, self serving and predatorial. At the end of WWII the west disbanded its armies, sent them home and rebuilt Europe. The USSR kept is armies in Eastern Europe, stripped the "liberated" countries of their industries, expelled massive amounts of people and rebuilt next to nothing for at least a decade unless it suited their interests. On top of that they attempted to intimidate the West with the blockade of Berlin, supported Chinese communists and armed North Korea with offensive weapons.
Considering these facts I'd say your statement "I see the victors of the Cold War seek to blame the entire conflict on the losing side" is wishful thinking at best.

 

OK well I'm putting my two cents worth in on this "mis-inderstanding" bit. I live in the US and well remember in high school it being brought up about how the US saved the world & such. Well it wasn't really till I got internet back in 2001 and started debating with foriegn posters that I learned that alot of what I was taught was just a tad bit exaggerated ,to say the least. I use to think the Italian's were inept boy was I wrong ,I used to think ALMOST every German was a Nazi again boy was I wrong though in these last two instances I learned otherwise well before I got internet. The US has always been very ,very insular compared to other nations ,I mean I'm sure foriegners can tell Americans far more about America then what a typical American can tell them about their respective nation. Ignorance isn't always bliss sometimes it's down right dangerous.

However before one goes bashing one country or the other too much remember the saying I once heard pertaining to criticising politicians " well even the Queen of England has to wear deodorant at times" you could substitute any nation for "queen" in that saying .

Now getting back to what Soviet people endured well they lost something like 20 to 28 million people during the war,the US about 350,000 to 400,000, and the UK ,I think, about 800,000-900,000 but correct me if I'm wrong. Those numbers tell the real story. I talk to alot of my fellow co-workers about these numbers and they're just astounded by it thereupon most,especially the younger ones, seem to so a bit more respect for Soviet /Russian people. One young co-worker,who is 17,asked " How can mankind be so crazy? Just what is so important as to wage a war on that scale?".

Anyways sorry about the rant.

 

I saluted you and agree with alot of what your saying,at least about governments, but I really,really don't think the average Russian had much say in the matter. The ones of us who were lucky to be born & live in the West at least could pressure our countries through Democratic means.

 

It should be noted that the "losers" had a philosophy that preached world domination/conquest. That does rather drop the blame, at least for the most part, in their laps.

 

one minor corrction in for the remainder very good text :the UK dead casualties in WWII were 350000-400000

 

Volga B. does has a point that western nations can not fully grasp the debacle that befell the people of the USSR. Yes Poland, France and the Low countries were conquered and occupied for years, but they were all defeated in rather quick campaigns and suffering comparitively modest casualties. How many western cities faced starvation as Leningrad did, how many western cities were utterly devestated as Stalingrad was. How many villages and towns in the east dissappeared completely, common in the east, but rather rare in the west and unknown in the UK and US.

Volga B. is also correct to point out that the Germany Army was fataly wounded in eastern combat, partly due to the courage and relentless effort by Soviet armies and partly due to inconsistant and unrealistic demands of Adolf Hitler.

But Friends, Romans, I am not here to praise Ceaser, but to bury him.

During the war the USSR was given much credit by the west for the effort and sacrifice made, and the Allies gave much consideration to how the Soviet government felt reguarding the western Allied war effort. With all due respect to the sacrifices of the USSR, the defeat of Hitler's Reich was a cooperative effort. The western Allies engaged and destroyed at least 1/3 of the Reich's war machine, doing so while providing the USSR with 10 to 15 percent of its war material needs, Fighting and defeating Another aggressive Empire without aid of their Soviet allies until literally the last days of that conflict. To come to grips with the whermacht the Allies had to overcome severe physical and geographic obsticales before a single shot was fired.

Both the Soviet Union and the west, led by the US, can share blame for the worst affects of the cold war, but had the USSR not looked upon the west with suspision and no little fear, they could have allowed the people of eastern europe to have true self-deternination and participated in the US Marshall plan. They could have rebuilt the motherland with freely given American aid and help and not spent so much of their limited resources in a arms race that was as futile as Hitler's dreams of conquest were.

 

Guys this has been a very interesting and informative thread and I would like for it to remain as such so please, lets all stay on topic...

 

I hear and obey!

 

But friends,Romans,I am not here to praise Caesar,but to bury him :Some one with a classic education !
Aut Caesar,aut nihil(that will say J.Biden;when he will be candidate to the presidency)