The myths of WWII (Eastern Europe)

Most people are usingin a discussion on page 1 Soviets and Russians on page 2 :that's a fact of live .
Of course,the Soviets winning and the Germans loosing are two sides of the same coin,but the first side is the most important,and,mostly forgotten/ignored .

 

Well,there must be a misunderstanding,caused by the fact
a) that I started a discussing on the reason why (IMHO) the Russian winteroffensive failed
b)that this discussion was going of topic,because some one was giving exemples of German weaknesses (exemples who were totally of topic)
c) as these exemples were resembling curiously on the "arguments" of the fan boys(you know the goose-steppings who are swarming in a lot of forums),or better,the excuses of these fanboys,to explain the German defeat,as,it was Hitler,it was the weather,it was logistics,it was ......,I hope you will understand my reaction .
About the turning points f course,you are right,and totally:there were no decisive battles,or turning points in the war in the east .A war between industrial giants as Germany and the SU,never could be decided in /by one battle .
With hindsight (and even without hindsight),one can say (as the Germans were thinking) that the only critical period (=the only period the Germans had a chance to win),was the summer:the 10 weeks between 22 june and 31 august:if on 31 august,the SU had not collapsed,the chance for the Germans to win was almost nihil .
But,of course,you and I are a minoriry :all forums are swarming of people who are brought up with fairy-tales as the decisiving battles of Moscow,Stalingrad and Kursk (of course) and still are dreaming of cool Tigers II,driven by blond goose-stepping Germans(replacing the Ivanhoe and Zorro of their youth).
And,to be earnest,after your post,I was thinking you belonged to them .

 

???? There is a very distinct difference between the Soviets and the Russians. Admittedly many misuse the term Russian. That doesn't mean that I will or that it shouldn't be pointed out when they do.

One side of a coin can hardly be more important than the other. You can't make a one sided coin.

 

Most people on the continent are using English for British, and, "only" the Scots, Welsh and Ulsterpeople will/or not , complain .
I know very well that the Soviet Empire was a multicultural state, dominated by the Russians , but , one can not always use Soviets, some alternation is desirable.
Most people will describe the inhabitants of Spain as Spaniards,although they know
1)that there are also a lot of non Spaniards living in Spain
2)that it would be very imprudent to say at Barcelona that the inhabitants of that city are Spaniards .

 

A capture of Moscow in 41 is a 50 50 shot that the Soviet command and control structures collapse thereby causing the Red Army to go blind. This capture of Moscow is as murky as it gets, but it was the only real hope of the Germans having a chance at (only a chance no matter how slim) victory. I will say that bypassing the large Soviet formations around Kiev for a mad dash at Moscow may seem risky when one looks at maps of the overall situation in Aug of '41, but one must keep in mind that even though these forces around Kiev were the best in the field for the Soviets, they were virtually incapable of conducting any sort of sustained offensive let alone maneuver warfare. Their greatest strength was in the defensive. I will state again that Moscow objective was the only slim chance that Germany had in the East.

 

No, with hindsight we know that Soviet Union was not going to fall with the capitulation of Moscow. They were actually prepared for this.
Surely this would have been a huge blow but not decisive.

Germans hope of victory were already dashed, with failure of Barbarossa (because of soviet resistance) these are just wet dreams of German generals. Initial drive to Moscow was started with the belief of eliminating what they thought last reserves of red army deployed for the defense of the city and not the capture of city itself.

First in august it was not possible logistically. Then

Actually soviets were conducting counter offensives from as early as 6th july. And they were all not mad rush but actually coordinated attacks which Germans failed to notice completely.

Now what you think is better, a planned attack on a large enemy formation or coming back to same threat after you have made yourself more weaker and this time only you are not looking for elimination of those forces but saving yourself.

In all probability this mad rush will only make Germans more weaker for the coming Soviet winter offensive

 

Oh, I completely do.

The problem is that even books who are supposed to be serious history books encourages this notion. Selling book is more important that truth. After all who wants to read about boring infantry and logistics. Give me the King Tiger

Nah I am not one of them. Oh and by the way if only Hitler had listened to his generals.........oh crap

 

About the question why there was no attack on Moscow on 1 september:these are the tank status reports on 4 september 1941
PzGr II (the one of Guderian,who was claiming that he was ready) :available for deployment :25 %,under repair and disabled:75%
PzGr III:available for deployment :40,7 %,under repair:25%,disabled :34,3%
PzGr II had 190 tanks available
PzGrIII had 320 tanks available
Source :the AHF:com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=165183

 

I do believe Stalin was in Moscow and refused to leave. I do believe a greatly outnumbered texan army defeated a much larger and better equipped army led by santa anna by capturing santa anna. If Stalin was captured then you can not guarantee that his life would not of been exchanged for german victory. Therefore moscow was a possibliity for an immediate victory. If Stalin was killed you can not guarantee that a struggle for power would of ensued within russia. Kluge had an opportunity to take hitler's life during an inspection but refused to go along with it unless Himmler was with him because of the possiblities of a civil war between the SS and heer. The russian revolution began when the russian czar nicholas was not killed but simply advocated. He was killed later and a russian struggle for power ensued. Even when Lenin himself died under the established communist state there was a struggle for power and Stalin himself killed many oppenents that would have held the position over him. I do not see how the russian government was as stable as you are making it out to be, please explain if you will why you believe that. as surely i am missing something. To my belief no government was stable from the great depression untill after world war II. Evident by all of the anti fascist, anti-communist laws and instabliity that allowed people like mussolini, hitler, and stalin to power.

 

And if anybody wants to make the notion of the fact that the soviets already had an emergency government in place at another location, and blah blah blah. That is like saying if you leveled washington D.C. right now the US would still be as effective as it is because we have a long line of back-ups already prepared. None of those back ups are as effective as the central command. Therefore, logic only tells me that although capturing moscow would not of guaranteed defeat militarily, it would have greatly helped the Germans because the russians would have had to spend even more time re-organizing and the would allow the germans to capitalize off of this. Or in short it would allow the germans to continue the success for a longer period of time that it had acheived during barbarossa. Although a series of more victories would have to be acheived it would have kept things in german favor for the time being.

 

Everybody knows that the german invasion was based off of a plan for a quick victory and that when that failed the germans lost. I dont see why people continue to debate this. The more interesting part is looking into alternate scenarios. What would have happened if the Germans had gone with the plan to capture moscow instead of hitlers objective of seperating the soviet army and destroying it. What if the germans had planned to fight a long war against the russians. I do believe in the first world war the germans fought a long war against russia and won despite being outnumbered so i dont see why it is not a possibility in the second world war either.

 

some of my views of what the germans should have done.
1) Hitler never should have invaded the soviet union without first defeating the UK because fighting a 2/3 front war would prove to be too hard to fight and the german heer was not even due for completion untill 42-43 anyways, and the germans had lost a great number of planes and pilots between the french campiagn and battle of britain.
2) Hitler should have made capturing moscow the primary objective. Seperating the soviet army into cauldrons and defeating them should have been a secondary.
3) Hitler should have listened to Bock's request to bypass minsk in favor of moscow. Hitler should have listened to Guderian later and allowed him to continue to moscow instead of Kiev.
4) Hitler should never had insisted on his stand fast order. If he had learned from his mistakes he should have been able to see that he had overextended his lines. He should have went with manstiens idea and allowed the russians to overextend themsleves even if it meant giving back uselss scorched lands that the germans fought so hard for.
5) German generals should have killed hitler and sought peace after stalingrad and tunisia.
6) The Germans should have put more effort into that atomic program. It shouldnt have been too hard to equip a V-2 with a nuke and that would of been a war winner regardless of the time period and state of germany.

 

I find these topics more interesting. And IMO your assertation that the Germans did not lose, the russians won is far from correct. IMO the Germans did much to lose the war for themselves and the Russians did much for themselves to win. What you are implying is simply that the Germans were just inferior to the russians and were at the russians mercy and that it did not matter what the Germans did. No expert or historian would agree with that. They would say that the Germans made the wrong moves while the russians made the right ones. Resulting in victory for russia and defeat for germany. Maybe even if germany had made the right moves there was still a possibility for them to lose but if the germans made the right moves and the russians made the wrong ones then russia could have lost just as easy as germany.

 

Well,you are wrong:for once,all serious historians are agreeing with Hitler and his generals :the only possibility to eliminate the SU,was in a quick,short campaign of 10 weeks .
The longer the war was lasting,the worse for the Germans,because
1)the Germans would become weaker
2)the Soviets would become stronger
If I am not wrong:this did happen and caused the German defeat.
The Germans did also the right move,the same as the Russians .
And,about Moscow:the capture of Moscow would assume a long war :it was IMPOSSIBLE for the Germans to capture Moscow in 10 weeks.And it was IMPOSSIBLE for the Germans to win a long war :the SU could mobilize 32 MILLION men,the SU was stronger in 1942 than in 1941,in 1943 than in 1942,etc .
In 1941,the SU was sending 9 million men to the front,in 1942 13 million,in 1943 14 million,in 1944 13 million,in 1945 10 million .
And it was the same for the tanks,artillery,aircraft .

 

What you are believing is irrelevant:Stalin was in Moscow,and refused to leave because he was certain Moscow would be saved .If Moscow would fall,Stalin would leave the city .

 

1) Impossible for the Germans to defeat Britain.
2)This was impossible
3)See my post 268.What Guderian was claiming was gas,nonsens,etc
4)I already have mentioned the number of operational German tanks in june 1942:with that number,the Backhand thing of Manstein would never work
6) "it shouldnt have been too hard to equip a V2 with a nuke":this is one of the most idiotic things I ever heard.It is proving that you haven't ever a particle of a notion about the Manhattan program .

 

Jager,

I have followed many if not all of your posts and all have a common trend, "If only the Germans had....".

Why are you so keen on trying to convince yourself and others on the notion that Germany lost and not on why Russia won?

I would imagine that anyone who is seriously interested on a subject/topic (of any sort) would do the out most research possible in order to have a full understanding or as much as possible on the mater. You, however; time and time again fail to do this and continue to revert to more excuses as to the German defeat, why?

Also there is no need to write 3 different posts when you can fit that all into one

 

About to equip a V2 with a nuke:why would it be easy ? It never was done.Maybe,you could explain us how to equip a V2 with a nuke ?And why would it be a war winner ? The first V2's were launched in september 1944.
And:you know (or better,you don't know)that to equip a V2 with a nuke,one has to have nukes.And,there NEVER was any chance for the Germans to have nucleair weapons .
I have done some searchings,and:
the launch weight of the V2 was 12,870 kilo
the weight of Little Boy:4,400 kilo
If some one is saying that it would be easy to equip the V2 with Little Boy,to launch and to guide the V2,IMHO,he is deconsidering himself .

 

Eh I was going to write a long post , but then thought against it. The points that jager is making are nothing new and they all have been dealt in this thread, if he had even read this thread seriously he wouldn't have made such comments.

But then this is what happens when wishful thinking is preferred over historical research.

 

But you are basing your entire argument on only the numbers of men. The eastern front was not decided simply by who could field the most soldiers. and to my knowledge the russians only mobilized 20 million men during the war. where is this 32 million coming from? If the number of soldiers you can field determine who wins battles then you are saying china is and always has been the most powerful nation on the planet? Are you saying the US stands no chance in a war against the chinese simply because we are outnumbered 5 to 1? Are you saying sam houston and his some 1,100 texans stood no chance against santa anna's 13,000 men? Are you saying the continental army stood no chance against the British red army? what about the first world war. I do believe the russians surrendered to the Germans despite their numbers. From ancient times all the way to the present it has been proven time and time again that numbers do not determine a war. There are many ways to fight and win wars. Yes russian numbers might have made things difficult for germany and by 1943 yes the numbers might have been so bad that the germans had no chance but until 1943 I disagree and many historians actually would disagree with you. Most historians consider kursk the last chance the germans had.