How was it that russia defeated the worlds strongest military at the time ( germany )

If you want to read something somewhat more profound than the usual German exculpatory propaganda ("it was all Hitler's fault") you can go after this online text.

This is in complete breach of copyright, but being a Russian site who can catch them?

There's a whole damn lot more in Russian, but I can't read it

 

Interesting article Za thanks.


Are u really from Moscow??


And what game is it that u were playing that u still have???

 

No, I'm not from Moscow but sometimes it looks like so The name of the game is after the asterisk in my previous message. I'm sure it's gone now, out of print. It took 3 or more people on each side to play for a few weeks, which was feasible in my youth days but not any longer.

Did you say you are Russian?

 

lol...... my mistake wasnt sure if u were serious when u stated "deep inside the kremlin"

The game sounds fun and reminds me a little of risk.

Yes I am russian and was born about 700km north of Moscow.

 

ZA where are u from?

 

These matters would better be handled by PM otherwise we're spoiling a thread, don't you think?

 

yes

 

Virtually came down to German arrogance and Russian willpower.

Hitler thought it would be over in 6-10 weeks, that the Russians couldn't last any longer then the French.

But probably no nation on Earth could have absorbed what the Nazis handed out to the Russians in the first 6 months of Barbarossa and still fight on, and once the Russians counter attacked at Moscow in early December '41, Germany was kaput.

The week starting 5th December '41, the Russian counter attack plus Hitler declaring war on the U.S. meant the game was over for Germany, it was just a matter of time,

Of course there's many tactical and strategic reasons why the Germans got into the fix they did, an inefficiently run economy and not having the country on a full war footing, plus antiquated logistics, [the fast moving motorised formations only made up a small part of the Heer, the vast mass of the army were on foot moving at WW1 pace, using over 650,000 horses in the attack and over 3 million during the war.]

Ive seen posts saying what if the Germans halted on the Dnieper river in October '41 and waited out the winter and rested and resupplied and prepared for the Soviet counter attack, then go on the offensive in Spring '42.

Would that help the Germans at all?

 

The Germans themselves were running out of ammo, men, tanks etc in late 1941 and were not prepared for a long war in the east. Thus stopping at Dniepr would not come into question as far as Hitler is concerned. That might have been the best solution ( suggested by Rundstedt was it? )but for Hitler an impossible idea. Also the tide was turning all the time against Hitler so leaving it all to the summer of 1942 would be rather dangerous. You could suggest peace negotiations as well because stopping in Oct 1941 would mean you should prepare for a long war then or try other ways to stop the war because the military option did not cut it short.

 

That's right, it was suggested to Hitler by von Rundstedt, and no doubt nothing was going to stop Hitler, but as a case of 'what if''suppose Hitler agreed, the Germans could have time to bring up supplies, winter uniforms ect, and attack in Spring, when conditions were better for the fast moving Panzer's.

 

Things would be better for these beasts as well...and Germans with no matching tank around...



T 34



KV 1



KV 2

 

those were some rugged tanks....

 

also keep in mind Anzac spring is the rain season in Russia in most cases the Germans were bugged down in all the mud due to the rain cause Russia, for the most part had no paved roads. Germans made better advances in the the summer and fall and sometimes even winter as opposed to spring

 

Yep, I agree with you blokes, a pause on the Dnieper would undoubtedly help the Russians more then the Germans, I see that argument on boards sometimes as probably a 'if we [the Germans] had done things differently we would have won the war' scenario.

 

Be advised Fugate is a very controversal author, many other authors contest his work.

I already read the text you linked, it's very interesting, especialy when describing what happened around Smolensk in summer 1941, and then the rush to Kiev instead of Moscow.

Fugate frees himself from German post war opinion that all was Hitler's fault and points out the responsabilities of OKW and OKH, but in the other hand, he more or less takes for granted post war Soviet propaganda, about Stalin's master plan (Comrades, we'll let the Germans push us backto Moscow, on the verge of collapsing, and only then, we'll push them back, after we have lost millions of men, many industrial assets and all white Russia - this will be much more funny than beating them at the start of their invasion).

For example, the very existence of the second wargame Jukov is supposed to have played just before the war, is contested.

Fugate is interesting, and his account of the summer 1941 situation is very interesting and documented (I believe this is the tunrning point), but his overall "master plan" theory is said to be somewhat biaised.

 

Za me being able to read Russian I would be more then happy to translate.

 

I guess there were many factors, out of which winter was not vital.

First of all, the sheer size of the USSR, its industrial power and human resources made it impossible for Germany to win a long war of attrition. Now, given Soviet geography, it was very unlikely Germany could have knocked out the USSR in a single campaign (and Von Rundstedt, indeed, said so).

Now, let's examine other factors, just for 'Barbarossa':

</font>

• The German High Command's inept planning (there was no overall strategy, too much tactical and strategical improvisation).</font>
• Hitler letting his generals lose precious time at the end of July in useless strategic chit-chat (precisely because of the lack of a coherent strategy).</font>
• Too late defrost in May and too early rains in September: more waste of time (less time of good weather).</font>
• German laughable logistics (the railroad problem, the use of horse and foot for the lack of lorries).</font>
• Soviet heroic and stubborn resistance, though un-coordinated.</font>
• Poor German intelligence.</font>
• German arrogance: deliberate decay on overall war production, which was far of being at full capacity.</font>
• Overspreading of the German armed forces (the occupation of all Europe, the battle of the Atlantic, thw war in the Mediterranean).</font>
• Predator occupation policies (in the long term, the Untermenschen had only one option: occupation, enslavement and ultimate annihilation.</font>
• Quick Soviet technological improvement.</font>
• More loss of time due to the lack of motorized equipment (German urban transportations and every available lorry in occupied Europe was stolen).</font>
• Soviet scorched earth policy.</font>

And I know my memory is leaving some others out...

 

I agree, General. Germany never had a chance.
In fact if im not mistaken Hitler said " if I knew how many tanks the Soviets had I would of thought twice about invading"

 

Soviets were also the first to use air to ground rockets at a large scale, they already had them when Barbarossa started.

 

another good point chocapic