When should Hitler have attacked Russia?

You are right about the whole Russian thing but the British statement couldn't possibly be true. They held Pegasus Bridge, took 2/5 beaches, ETC.

I think that the Russians did rely on numbers in the end. I think they used conscription? And with a massive country like that, when conscription is put on, it doesn't matter if they are trained or not, they will come through in huge numbers.

Also I have noticed you are from Russia, so like any person would, they'd try to say that their country is great. But I'm not saying that they aren't great, I'm just saying that you are being a home supporter not a glory supporter

 

Sorry, I don't buy that 5 to 1 ratio. What is a "loss"? Krivosheev's popular number of 11.3 mn includes KIA, MIA, POWs, DoW. If you compare this to Overmans number of 2.7 mn german deaths only, without even considering the severe german losses in the "final fight" 1945, you will realize that the 1:5 ratio is way to high.

My bet is on 1 to 3 or 1 to 3.5.

Can't comment on tanks, aircraft.

Cgeers,

 

Conscription puts a damn lot of men on that kill list for Germans. I therefore do believe 5:1 is quite accurate, when a lot of the German army was also on the Western front.

In the battle of Somme, it says in my History book that it estimates that Brits outnumber the Germans 7:1, but lose men 7:1.....

 

A population three times the German one. But a population of starving, illiterate, ill-trained, opressed 'sub-humans'... —and to prevent some members who can't read from calling me a neo-nazi, I'm only stating what was almost the general belief at the time.

They are portable. American 0,50 caliber MGs aren't.

Not if your main political aims are to conquest the territory your 'superior' people needs to adequately grow economically and in population as well as destroying your dreaded enemy: the 'Judeo-Bloshevist conspiracy' to destroy the world...

This is perfectly right, but certainly shows very good the kind of attrition war it was. And Germany not being prepared to fight it from the very beginning cost ultimate defeat. The USSR could very easily deploy 5 men and 10 tanks for every single one she lost, whilst Germany couldn't afford losing either. This is why the German war machine needed to be prepared for a short and gigantic attrition war to destroy as quick as possible Soviet huge recovering capabilities. The more time passed, the less chances there were for Germany. And Hitler knew it. "The momentum and superiority of my armed forces may just be over in 1942" he said in 1940.

Now, Alexanderr. Let's see whose posts are ridiculous...

It was pure sheer numbers what gave the USSR a victory in the Winter War, if you don't know. Flexible defense and supperb leadership and training by the Finns made them successfully resist the biggest army in the world for months.

The Red Air Force couldn't effectively influence anything during that war because of weather, poor tactics and very, very bad co-ordination with ground forces —thanks to bad leadership and communication.

The same thing can be said about the co-operation between artillery, armoured forces and infantry. Soviet intelligence failed to adequately evaluate Finnish war capabilities —Soviet leaders made the same mistake you did: under-rating Finland's forces by how ill-equiped and small they were— and terrain.

The Finnish had tactical superiority almost everywhere, because their command structure, training, communication, equipment —at least winter equipment—, leadership, flexible tactics and personal thoughness of the average foot-soldier. This, if I am not mistaken, is what makes an Army a good one.

If Finland lost is no surprise. She had no industrial basis at all and only 2% of Soviet population...

Are you serious? Where the-heck does your figure of the Red Air Force "shooting down more German planes than western allies in 1939 in a single day" come from? Excuse me, but that is complete nonsense. In 1939 there was a declared war but not an actual one. And I think that you could only compare June 22nd 1941 with May 10th 1940, the day operations actually started. And if I remember well the western allies did not lose 1.200 planes —mostly on the ground— in one day. And some one who studies 'Barbarossa' knows that the Luftwaffe's losses that day were mostly due to accidents and ground fire.

What and why would the Finnish have been doing in the Ukraine? And they would have performed quite well because the Finnish Army was a good fighting force for the reasons mentioned above.

A set-back for the Japanese Army by substantial Soviet élite force which, by the way, were not fighting the Japanese kind of warfare. And it is quite unwise to say that this and that armies were bad ones becuase they couldn't fight here and there. The US Army had a hard job in fighting in the jungle and was not at all a mediocre army.

And again, you are forgetting many, many things about the Japanese Army that Hahlin-Gol doesn't change. Japanese infantry was incredibly tough and well-trained, the officer corps and General Staff was supperb, communications and co-ordination between different forces was a thousand times better than the Soviet.

It is incredibly naïve to say that while the Red Army was shooting men for desertion, defeatism and 'cowardice' useless counterattacks, suffering millions of losses, this 'inferior' Army in the other side of the world was teaching the world what real Blitzkrieg was, conquesting the whole damned Pacific Ocean.

This shows how little knowledge you have in the Mediterranean campaign. First of all, Rommel was not alone, but had several Italian divisions supporting and consolidating his advances. Second, the British Army by the time was doing fighting in Greece, Crete, North Africa, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Somalia and the far east.

If once and again Wavell, Auchinleck and Alexander would have been forced by the strategical situation to withdraw very substantial forces from the desert, Rommel couldn't have ever done anything substantial.

I'd like to ask who else thinks that way?

Even if his statement about the British Army is completely false, I have to clarify that you cannot compare the British Army of 1944 with the one of 1941.

They did use huge numbers because of conscription, volunteering and forced obligation. But unlike many believed, by late 1942 the Soviets started winning not only because their numbers, but for the constant improvement on their equipment, training, communications, command system, operational knowledge and officer corps.

In this forums we don't do that. We leave fake patriotism and chauvinism aside. History is the way it happens, not the way a biased amateur Historian thinks. Why don't you ask the Poles who came here and stated that Poland had won WWII for Great Britain...

[ 18. February 2004, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]

 

1:5 is indeed very high.

Total Red armed forces deaths during the Great Patriotic War is about 6.300.000, while German military deaths in the eastern front are about 2.750.000. The coorect relation would be 1: 2,29

No, brutal and uncivilised fighting in Soviet home land does.

Not really. Only 1/3 of the German armed forces fought in the west and sustained much less casualties.

 

It isn't always the team with best arms wins, attacks from planes are greater than any gun the Germans may have had. Deaths of Russians populated the battlefield. So what is the point giving a gun to every single person? The dead provide arms for you. All you need to do is spot a gun on the ground. Also Artillery played a part in the Russian attack.

Point one of General:
*Starving*.... Name me one countries army that wasn't? The soldiers don't carry much food simply for the reason of weights maybe?
*Ill-trained*.... Some soldiers were trained. But it was conscription which put farmers and simple folk on the army, they didn't have time to be trained. They could also be called body guards for those hardened men as they provide numbers to distract.
*Sub-humans*.... I'd have called Hitler the sub-human, they were fighting for their land.

General's point 2:
*MG42's are portable*.... They are best deployed and ready, you can't go through a town, find a patrol and quickly shoot your way through them.

General's point 3:
Not if your main political aims are to conquest the territory your 'superior' people needs to adequately grow economically and in population as well as destroying your dreaded enemy: the 'Judeo-Bloshevist conspiracy' to destroy the world.... As every pupil knows, on a test, if you are stuck on something, come back to it. After vicotry in the West, all of the Germans could be on the East without a care in the world from an attack from the Brits or Americans.

General's point 10:
I'd like to ask who else thinks that way?.... Not I .

General's point 11:
Even if his statement about the British Army is completely false, I have to clarify that you cannot compare the British Army of 1944 with the one of 1941.... Who's *his*? The King's bodyguard?

General's point 12:
They did use huge numbers because of conscription, volunteering and forced obligation. But unlike many believed, by late 1942 the Soviets started winning not only because their numbers, but for the constant improvement on their equipment, training, communications, command system, operational knowledge and officer corps.... Has anyone played CoD? In the final mission you storm a castle. The Russians played spectacular, and it had to be one of the easiest missions. So with this statement, I agree strongly. However, I doubt many people volounteered.

General's point 13:
In this *forums* we don't do that. We leave fake patriotism and chauvinism aside. History is the way it happens, not the way a biased amateur Historian thinks. Why don't you ask the Poles who came here and stated that Poland had won WWII for Great Britain.... forum* In soccer, many people like their home team, like myself. Does that mean supporting your own team is bad?

The rest I do not have any problems with and I give you the thumb's up General .

 

1/3 is still plenty of men. See what I mean by they shouldn't have fought Russia but put that extra 2/3 to the West? The Western front was hard enough for the Allies, but tripling the army to the West was more than enough to repel the Brits and Americans.

Also, Italy should have instead helped out Germany on either front instead of making another.

After Germany conquered whole of Europe (just like the Romans did), excluding Russia, his men can multiply everywhere to make an overwhealming army.

 

The Germans —at least until winter 1941—, the British, French and of course, Americans did never faced starvation. And by starvation I mean that Hitler and his henchmen believed that thanks to Stalin's famines, the soldiers and the population were physically and psychologically weak, unwilling to resist.

I don't only mean workers and farmers conscripted one day, given a rifle and sent to combat that very afternoon only. When Stalin got rid of 30.000 officers during his late 1930s purge he got rid of valuable and experienced officers. Thus, affecting the quality of lessons in officers and NCOs' schools, who were the ones who trained the men. Remember too many of the Red Army's units, of Cossacks by example, who were mostly illiterate and had no knowledge of modern weaponry. Also considered the low education standards of the average Russian soldier from the country, who might not have even know what a car looked like, didn't know how to read or count. Then put him into a tank...

Machine guns don't change anything. But the MG-42 could be fired by one man from his hips. It only weighed 12,5 kilogrammes. A little more than the American BAR.

No. Not if your mighty armed forces are becoming slowly obsolete, your enemy is rearming and the strategical situation can very rapidly turn against you.

Aleksandrr.

You have no idea of how effetive was Soviet "Fight for the Motherland!" propaganda. Thousands of students and women immediately volunteered for all service branches, as well as women immediately went as nurses, workers and into the armed forces.

No, it isn't bad. It is bad to come and say: The Real Madrid, Ajax, Manchester —or whatever bloody soccer team you choose— is the best soccer team in the world and the rest it's rubbish. They lost the match because were betrayed by the FIFA...

Thanks, Liam.

But nazi Germany was not an empire which was to build, colonise, expand culture and build the basis of future civilisation. But one to completely destroy 7.000 years of culture and history.

[ 18. February 2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]

 

The MG42 business... Well truthfully state where it is best at, with people in what position.... Because I can say that from the hips in a town isn't the best scenario.

 

Just because a country is successful by throwing away lives in mass attacks does not mean that is the "best" tactic. Consider what a small country like Germany or Japan has accomplished against what Giants like Russia have.

Do not think Friedrich said those countries were more successfull, just had better tactics and I would agree. I agree with the comment that superior weapons does not guarantee victory just like I also would say that sheer numbers is not the best way.

 

Technology is one of the most superior ways of winning. The atomic bomb, and dam busters significently helped the win of WW2. I'd rather be one Machine-gunner against 100 swordsmen than one of the 100 swordsmen against the Machine-gunner.

I say the way is Techno any day

 

Definitely agree with that.

 

"MG 42 not portable;US 50 cal. not portable;Dam busters helped win the war".Where do ya'll read this stuff?The Browning 50 cal was carried which makes it portable.Think only Rambo could fire it from the hip. Dam busters??Helped win the war??How about B17'S leveling Germany,now that helped win the war.Hitler had no second front if he had'nt declared war on us.Remember "lend-lease"?Think Russia could have handled Germany by herself had we not supplied trucks equipment etc.How about Stalin screaming for the"worthless"allies to start a second front to take pressure off his.Game of chess.anyone?

 

Two things:

First, technology doesn't make a difference when ifferences are not abyssmal as those of a sword against a machine gun or a B-17 with incendiary bombs against a balistic missile of the Cold War...

If the Germans used Panzer IIIs and the Soviets a couple of T-34s during 'Barbarossa' didn't change things much because both were modern armies to an extent. When both faced enemies with abyssmal technological inferiority —e. g. Poland and Finland— then things developed quite easy.

And second, the Lend & Lease programme helped a lot the Soviet Union, but not saved her from total defeat.

I just hate those claims that the USA just won both world wars for everybody...

 

General. I never intended to sound like the US won the war by itself,if that's what you mean. Don't know how you thought that but I'm not a pro-writer either.

 

Technology is a massive winner. Without technology, the bomb wouldn't be invented. Also the M1 Garand was a very useful weapon which played a good role in WW2. Of course technology isn't the only winner. However, if other countries like Italy, even if Italy inventing the Nuclear Bomb sounds ridiculas, but if they did then the tide of WW2 would change in seconds, why? Technology.

Chess is awesome. So don't use it in worthless statements like that.

Also, Germans should have never betrayed Russia!
People fail to realise that if they go back in time, not matter how much they try and try to attack Russia in 101 ways, attacking Russia led to a loss. Anyone who watches Time Commanders would agree that when sandwiched between two armys, it is a slim victory.

Maybe the MG42 statement was a bit farfetched, but I was trying to bring the point that, when deployed, MG42's are easily more effective than undeployed one's.

Also, I agree that the Dam Busters only played a minor role, but I am stating that technology one or the most important things in WW2.

Oh and by the way you spelled a few things in there wrong:
ya'll should be y'all stating you all.
had'nt should be hadn't stating had not.
anyone should have been Anyone

And the punctuation is suffering badly....

And the {B}rowning {A}utomatic {R}ifle is my favourite weapon of the lot!

Also, if anyone agrees that technology doesn't make a difference, try to beat your smg score with a rifle score, without grenades on Medal of Honour Allied Assault, you will see then that technology DOES make a difference!

 

*cough*

"Dam Busters significently helped the win of WW2"?

Sorry, no pun intended, but you're weaking your argumentation by advocating such nonsense.

And a Netiquette thing (Herrmann's law): "Those who have not enough arguments left will substitute this by making remarks about the typos and bad spelling of his counterpart."

If you don't want others to pick on your grammar, wording and spelling, don't pick on their's. This is an international history board and not an english schoolroom.

Cheers,

[ 19. February 2004, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

Yes.

How about Churchill and Rooseveld giving everything to Stalin if he only don't surrender? Guess the two weren't quite keen on invading Europe without having the Axis forces fighting and bleeding white in the East.

Cheers,

 

This would fall into the realm of differences in strategies. The East had no issue in using the foot soldier as fodder whereas the West was more concerned in taking a more safe approach.

 

Also, I agree that the Dam Busters only played a minor role, but I am stating that technology one or the most important things in WW2.

Look in my last post

I was just stating that the dam busters were made from technology, and what little role they did play, they still were effective.

I am bringing the point that an advanced civilisation will be more likely to win than a less modern civilisation.

Sorry, wasn't trying to insult grammer but I felt an urge to mention it. Just like other people have an urge to say things that could insult people, which I won't mention.

The only point I am trying to bring from all this is that by attacking Russia, Hitler wasn't doing himself a favour. I am saying that many people voted to attack Russia at the same period. Why? Hitler already experimented that and lost. He should have been faithful to his ally and maybe betray him as soon he's taken out his enemies. All he was doing was making a huge list of enemies. So why do the same?
Many people say it was the SMARTEST year, but it lost. Attacking in 1943, 1944, 1945, would have lost. It's all the same, no matter what year, you are going against probably the most populated place you could. However, by leaving Russia out of the equation, but having Russia to help could have set a whole new side to WW2. Now the Allies are relying on America, Free French, Brits ETC. to win? I think Germany stood a chance if that was the case.