What if the Germans attacked Moscow instead of Stalingrad?

To sum it up, Germans lost their final crusade against Communism because of cold weather, Romanians and the Allied landing in Italy.

Brilliant.

 

Wonders never cease...

 

And because of French food and French women.


Can we just put that "Final Crusade" thing behind us. I have already received four bad reputations from you guys.

 

Four bad reputations? Hmm, that's harsh, that does not include me.

But, "You sow the wind, you reap the tempest".

In other words, you talk BS, you get BS.

 

True, and I don't blame them a bit.

 

Im sorry but is that a Ruskie in your Avatar?

 

What if i say yes.

 

Well then you will get a "job well done comrade" and some vodka

 

Sorry comrade, the only thing "Russian" in this photo is the map.

 

Hahaha

 

Well getting back to the original thread, as you can see by my last posting the Germans had enough troops to go after both Moscow and Stalingrad (If Leningrad was no an issue) especially Heers Gruppen Sud which i have not included foreign troops into that mix.

It would have been bloody but eventually Moscow and Stalingrad would have fallen.

 

Have you got a problem with France like you have with Muslims ?

I did not give you bad reputation, you are doing a good work on your own
Maybe it's just the "Cross" in your nickname which acts as a reminder.

Anyway, your comments on France are unfair : France had no cold winter, Romanians, nor allied landing in Italy to beat Germany

 

I know who gave me the bad reputations, their names are behind the red marks.

The people who gave me the bad reputations did what they thought was right, and I did what I thought was right. Just like France did what the French thought was right, Germany did what the German thought was right. People are different, so are nations. Otherwise we would not need the United Nations, or the Free Fire Zone.

Do I have a problem with France? No
But I think they didn't do what was right according to me (fought like men). Then of course they thought it was right to surrender.
And I don't have a problem with the Muslims. But I think it is right to remove the "ideological pollusion" of children that were born to Muslim families, and they don't.

 

I was not referring to your very knowledgeable comment as USSR fighting Germany when France didn't, which was at least related to what you were talking about. (Just for your education : 90.000 soldiers dead in about 6 weeks, that's 0.2 % of population for the sole battle of France, make some comparisons with other countries and then think it over, it won't hurt you).

I was referring one your last comment about French women and food.

I really wonder why you bring this.

Any explanation, or it was just an irrepressible bark ?

 

Sometimes I get this urge to climb a wall just before 3 pm and prclaim to the worls "Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!" but usually I show restraint.

If they historically went against one of the objectives and managed to lose, what is the logic in going against two and winning?

 

I have to side with this point of view. As a certain Vulcan would've said if he was on this thread, "Fascinating but illogical."

 

sorry roddoss.... maybe i didn't get you very well... but what do you mean when you say "enough troops"? having half soldiers of your enemy is "enough"??? and not mentioning tanks.

 

I don't know about Roddoss, but my reply would be an Eisenhower quote:

 

And that's exactly what they tried in summer 1942.

And that's exactly what they failed to achieve.

So what exactly is the point ?

Engage and eliminate the whole Soviet military power was precisely the primary goal of German's 1942 summer offensive, cut USSR from his main industries (including oil) came in second.

Germans imagined that their main offensive would commit the Red Army to throw everything available in the denfense of it's industrial/oil assets, and that they would inflict the same amounts of losses and prisonners to the Red Army than they had inflicted in summer 1941, and that the Red Army would be dead as a result.

They would soon realise, that the time of the big double envelopments/pocket elimination like in 1941 was over, Soviet defenses were more mobile than in 1941.

When Rostov fell, in late July, it was obvious that the primary goal (destruction of USSR human power to defend itself) was not soon to be achieved, the number of prisonners and casualties inflicted by the 1942 offensive was disappointing and far from the 1941 figures.

That's the point where Hitler gave up this primary goal and started to add in the division of the offensive into new goals. Like he did in 1941 when the offensive met its 1st issues and disappointments.

Before september, Germans realised that the war would be lost if numbers would continue to evolve the way they had during the 1942 summer offensive (manpower on the field / available reserves / lossrate).

That's the reason why committing the bulk of Red Army into a fight and destroy it would have changed nothing, because that's exactly what Germany tried in vain, unless there are very good reasons why it would have worked in the Centre, when it failed miserably in the South.

IMHO Germans blew their chance, if they ever had any to win this war, in July 1941 by loosing precious time for the closure of Smolensk pocket just because Guderian the diva already started to advance towards Moscow, and after this, i n july – august when they lost weeks hesitating between Kiev or Moscow.