Top 5 biggest mistakes

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree about the Stalin argument. But what was he supposed to do? stay and fight?? hide out in the buildings? I just dont see how the Russians could not understand that Stalin would clearly retreat so that russia would not be without a leader.

About the "attacker's advantage" I understand your point now and it is quite valid. I just did not understand what you meant at first.

 

Agreed,maybe stalins talk of staying was just brave talk,i know the officers wanted him out of there.

 

No, the Germans werent advancing on Moscow because of the snow. If the Germans had waited 6 weeks earlier, then they would have been stopped by the rains.

Macker33,

Stalin issued the order 227 because he himself did not flee Moscow. Had Moscow fallen im pretty sure he would have fled to the alternate capital. If Moscow was captured, all the Russians had to do was surround the city and wait it out. The Germans by this time would now be stuck in Leningrad and Moscow with no reinforcements. If such a scenario is at hand then we must also consider how many of the German high command would have been killed in the booby trapped buildings, as the top from the German high command (including Hitler) would have came to visit the former Russian capital.

 

they would have been in moscow by the time the rains came,maybe they were lucky they failed but didnt know it.

And the russians would have counter attacked but how long would that have taken?the russians were pretty much in disarray and the rains that would have hindered german supply would have affected all russian supply efforts too.

 

How does one salute a post but then continue to argue against it...

 

I'm fair,it was a good post.

 

The qualifier here is that the Soviets were used to operating in the "mud" of the Steppes, while the Germans were not. This makes a difference in the most basic of ways. Doing something one is accustomed to as opposed to learning how to do the same job.

 

The Russians did not counter attack when Napoleon captured Moscow.....

Not quite. The Red Army had two advantages which the Germans lacked.

1. Railroad

2. T-34

 

That is exactly what I was trying to convey "Sloniksp", the Germans had no experience with the "mud", nor the "snows" of the Steppes. The Soviets did, which is the underlying reason for the wide-gauge rail, and the wide-tracked AFVs.

 

Also, if you are talking about fighting in the winter, you have to remember that the Soviets had developed grease, oil, and other lubricants with cold resistant properties to keep mechanisms such as tank engines, artillery, guns, etc. working in the cold.

 

Yeah ok,i'll conceed that the russians operated better in tough conditions but i'd still be confident of the germans being able to defend moscow.

 

The Germans suffered over 350,000 casualties in Stalingrad and were unable to take the city with their best army (arguably).

How many casualties do you suppose the Germans might have suffered taking a city far larger in size and far more heavily fortified?

And how do you suppose these very same men who just lost so many of their own taking this city would defend it, and with what?

How long would the Germans be able to hold out once being surrounded?

Stalingrad comes into mind here but with far greater casualties.

 

Actually the winter in 41' and 42' was so cold, that the Red Army suffered virtually from all the set backs that the Wehrmacht did. Their tanks also froze unless the engine was constantly ran and there are numerous reports of their rifles and other weapons jamming and yes even falling victim to frostbite.

Sure, the Russians fared better in the winter, but were still suffering from many more disadvantages in comparison to an adversary who has not only conquered pretty much all of Europe but did so with out loosing a land battle.

 

I was always under the impression that it was better for the United States that they did nothing.If the Pacific Fleet had attempted to evacuate, the Japanese would have caught them in open water and done even worse damage. I watched a documentary that concluded that at least 4 battleships would have been sunk and casulties would be much more severe with sailors drowing in the deeper water. At Pearl Harbor only 1 of the battleships was completely destroyed. The others were repaired and soon fighting.

 

I was very suprised to read in an earlier post that the russians had booby trapped moscow and were going to only leave behind geurillas.

I know the russian counter offensive pushed the germans back from the gates of moscow but i dont think they would have pushed the germans back had they managed to get a foothold in moscow itself.

I dont think it would have been like stalingrad and i dont think the russians could have encircled it.
Mainly because i believe the germans would have stuck a cordon around leningrad and moved army group north in to assist.

 

Well if they had been at sea they would have been moving and maneuvering targets. They would also have been closed up for combat and in an AA formation. Likely would have suffered far less hits and probably would have been in range to make it back to PH if necessary. Most of the analysis that suggest they were better off in harbor assume the same hits.

 

Hello to all.

1) German Army under command of Hitler, politic as army leader is disaster.
2) Bombing of London and other civil sectors, If I want break some nation and don`t have massive airforce primary must be destroyed army bases, factoryes.
3) Operation Barbarossa: No winter uniforms for army and no equiptment ready for winter. (Operation Typhoon)
4) Hitler`s destructive orders.
5) Fail of Hitler assasination at 1944.

 

I think he means the consequences now, thoughts about Nuclear Holocaust and the destruction of mankind and stuff... Truman hated his decisions against the Japanese:

1. Don't use the Atomic Bombs. Send massive amounts of US soldiers to mainland Japan. Thousands, possibly even millions of both Japanese and American soldiers will be killed.

2. Use the Atomic Bombs. Although it will produce less casualties, thousands of innocent Japanese will die at the cost of ending WWII.

 

Then that's what he should have said, not that the Manhattan Project was a mistake, because there really was no alternative in 1941; either the Western Allies developed the atomic bomb first or some other power would. If that power turned out to be the Axis, it would have been an unthinkable calamity for humanity.

The use of the bombs on Japan was also the only logical alternative, as you point out. It's difficult to see how Truman could have made any other decision knowing what he knew at the time. Even with the advantage of hind sight, using the bombs to end the war as quickly as possible was the only logical, and humane, thing to do. Richard B. Frank, in his book "Downfall: The End of The Imperial Japanese Empire" makes a very lucid and compelling case that the use of the atomic bombs saved, on the balance, millions of Japanese and American lives. Every attempt I have ever seen to argue otherwise is based on nothing but distorted evidence and unvarnished emotionalism. The Manhattan Project, distasteful as it might be to some, was perhaps one of the wisest decisions the Roosevelt administration ever made.