Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

If the Nazis conquered the USSR?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: If the Nazis conquered the USSR?
    Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 20:29
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

Wehrmacht was defeated by the Red Army, not because of winter.


Absolutely!  Both sides suffered from the winter - the Soviets less so perhaps because they were better prepared.  However, the Germans being 'overextended' and at the end of a tenuous supply line were also important factors.  On the flip side, because the Germans formed 'hedgehog' defensive positions centered on villages that provided some shelter while the Soviets were forced to operate largely in the 'open', and the Soviets supply lines were forced to run 'cross country' because the Germans were holding key positions on the established lines of communications, the Germans gained some advantages from the winter as well.  Without the Red Army offensive, the Germans would not have suffered anywhere near the losses they did due to winter, once they had called off their own attacks.

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

They underestimated the Soviet industry and military power and they paid for it. They thought that Russia was a peasant state and would fold under massive attack, like the Tsarist Russia did in the first world war, or China did against Japanese attack. However the USSR was transformed by Stalin into an industrial power in a very short time.


Even more, Hitler depended on his own prejudices rather than 'hard' intelligence information.  He believed that Slavs were racially 'inferior' and that 'communism' was an inferior system and therefore the Red Army could not possibly fight effectively.  The Winter War performance of the Red Army, and then its performance during the early stages of the German invasion confirmed him in these prejudgements.  In fact, Stalin's brutal regime was possibly 'vulnerable' to 'collapse', if faced with a war of 'liberation' (reopening of the churchs and redistribution of the collectivized land).  However, the campaign of deliberate brutality and extermination right from the start was to a significant extent 'self-defeating'.  Once Nazi policies had 'forced' the vast majority of the Soviet population to supporting Stalin's regime (in order to resist extermination) and Soviet factories starting cranking out large volumes of advanced weaponry the Germans were in trouble. 
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 20:08
Wehrmacht was defeated by the Red Army, not because of winter.
 
They underestimated the Soviet industry and military power and they paid for it. They thought that Russia was a peasant state and would fold under massive attack, like the Tsarist Russia did in the first world war, or China did against Japanese attack. However the USSR was transformed by Stalin into an industrial power in a very short time.
 
Stalin said in 1933: 'We are 100 years behind the Western powers. Either we close this gap in 10 years, or they will wipe us off the map.' The bastard was right, the Germans came knocking before even 10 years were up.
 
Anyway, Even if the Germans had taken the Caucasus they would have lost, the Russians had already started to sabotage the oilfields in Baku. They had enough oil in the Urals themselves. Even if the Germans had taken Moscow or Leningrad, they had to cross the Volga, and later the Urals. They already had difficulty with logistics, half the way in.
 
As to the original question, what would have happened if the Germans conquered the USSR? We know their plans. They planned to inflict 30 million causalties, and expel the rest of the Russians in European territories to Asia beyond the Urals. Then they would colonise the European Russia with German farmers, in a fashion similar to the US expansion to the West.
 
Soviets foiled this plan, but they lost about 25+ millions anyway.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 17:54
Originally posted by Ironduke

...And a rather long debate on my own forum, at 1234 replies with many military experts weighing in:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/history-warfare/3123-could-germany-have-won-wwii.html


The thread on your own forum appears to be MIA. ;)
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 20:49
Although the original post was not 'concerned' with how the Germans might have won, a number of subsequent posts have raised issues that indicate that the how is an important issue that would affect the 'aftermath' even given a German 'victory'.  I agree with earlier comments to the effect that, given Germany's historical campaign of 'brutality' and 'extermination', even being more successful militarily would still leave a 'rump' state based in the east and ongoing 'irregular' warfare against partisans in the 'occupied' zone that would tax Germany's resources.  In that sort of scenario the best the Germans could manage would have been to 'stalemate' the west until nuclear weapons were available.  Basically in order to 'win', Germany would have had to force Britain out of the war.  However, to accomplish this Germany needed not only to 'win' militarily in the east, but to be able to 'hold' it with minimal resources of their own.

With their historical campaign against the Soviet Union, Hitler had simply 'bitten off more than he could chew'.  He was trying to accomplish 2 goals in a single campaign, both the military defeat of the Soviet Union and the extermination of a segment of the population in preparation for German 'colonization'.   Now, a key component of a 'successful' campaign would be, IMHO, to separate these 2 actions into distinct 'phases'.  The first phase would involve the military defeat of the Soviet Union, followed by its breakup -  to be 'replaced' by a number of fascist 'puppet' regimes.  Puppet states in the Ukraine, Crimea, Baltic States and Caucasus would likely have been the most successful.  Perhaps less so in the core Russian areas.  A simple approach of 'reopening churches' and 'redistribution' of the collectivized land would have 'won over' much of the rural population. With a successful 'Phase I', Germany would have been free to concentrate on the west.  This would have involved switching their production and R&D efforts to air, naval and WMD's in order to force Britain out of the war.  Germany would have held a huge geographical advantage in this conflict, as Britain would have vulnerable to attack from the nearby French coast, while Germany would have had a defensive 'buffer' of France and the low countries that would have to be penetrated before Germany itself could be hit.  Once the Germans had build large numbers of advanced models of u-boats, fighters and heavy bombers it would have been increasingly difficult for Britain to hold out.    
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 19:39
Any attempt to invade britain by the axis powers would have come unstuck and would have proven a costly mistake.
The axis powers had the brains to know this when it came to the crunch and they shelved the idea.
Thankfully the scenario described never happened and thanks to the russians and the british empire both fronts were held.
A second front was only ever opened because they did not fancy there chances across the channel and they failed to get the required air superiority.
Plus the german surface fleet was pretty poor.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 13:45
Originally posted by ChickenShoes

I wouldn't say his military notions were even remarkably astute in the beginning. He was a master politician with an amazing poker face. He was skilled in the art of manipulation, but he did not invent blitzkrieg or any of the tactics used in World War II, he just oversaw them.


Actually he even opposed blitzkrieg in its first real instance (when Guderian crossed the Meuse near Sedan). Guderian was ordered not to exploit the breach and wait for infantry reinforcements to move up and form a salient, on Hitler's direct orders. Guderian managed to get permission from von Kleist to do a reconnaisance in force around Sedan - to a depth of 10km. Guderian simply ignored both Hitler's direct order and the limitations of Kleist's order and proceeded on ... Guderian literally defied the entire German command, including Hitler, and all of German military doctrine - there was no plan to conduct deep battle in France but when command discovered Guderian off madly racing towards Paris with the French helpless to do anything about, it became all part of Hitler's infallible genius and his masterful planning.

What Hitler was really good at doing, was taking credit for the successes of others, while laying the blame for his failures on his staff.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 04:58
I was thinking of an actual example ChickenShoes and have pulled out some of my notes for a future book.

By 1940 Britain had declared war. The British Channel Islands never declared war hoping to remain neutral. They are near the coast of France, between the French provinces of Normandy and Brittany. The Channel Islands became the only portion of the British Isles to be invaded and occupied by German forces during the war.

On June 17 France asked Germany for terms of surrender. On June 28, traffic lined the high street of St Peter Port in Guernsey, the waterfront of the harbor capitol. Most of the traffic was trucks laden with greenhouse tomatoes. They waited to load their produce onto boats bound for England. A dull thunder rolled in the sky, rose to a constant roar, then the planes swooped. Cannon fire raked the road and incendiary bombs sent up smoke and flames as the vegetable trucks exploded. Blood and tomatoes stained the cobbled streets and wharfs.

(Reports from the London Times)

The Channel Islands Raids.

 The death toll was 33. In Guernsey 23 were killed and 36
injured. 10 were killed and several more injured in Jersey.

 The Ministry of Information stated last night.

As it has already been announced, the Channel Islands
have been demilitarized. It is now learnt that enemy
landings have been made in Guernsey and Jersey.
Telegraphic and telephonic communications have been cut
and no further information is at present available.

The German battle songs beginning with Engellandied (for
we're off to fight against England) were turned on again
last night after the broadcasting of a special communique
of the German High Command announcing the capture of
the Channel Islands. 

German Propaganda Report

On June 30, the British Island of Guernsey was captured
in a daring coup de main' by detachments of the German
Air Force. In an air fight a German Reconnaissance
aeroplane shot down two Bristol Blenheim bombers. On
July 1, the island of Jersey were occupied by surprise in
the same manner.

elenos
Back to Top
ChickenShoes View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 08-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 152
  Quote ChickenShoes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 12:57
Originally posted by elenos

You have a point there ChickenShoes. The master politician knows how to delegate and get what advice they most need from others. All the Nazi tactics had been invented but he allowed for them to happen. For instance the strafing of refugee civilians on the roads to slow down the advance of enemy troops. A cold blooded thing to do but highly effective as a tactic.
 
 
thanks!Smile, i def agre with you!
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 07:24
Of course he was expecting the attack. Both parties view the pact as a temporary measure to buy some time. SU and 3D reich were antagonists from the very beginning.
 
Well, I suppose when you have two diametrically opposed superpowers right next to eachother, something's going to happen...
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 00:48
You have a point there ChickenShoes. The master politician knows how to delegate and get what advice they most need from others. All the Nazi tactics had been invented but he allowed for them to happen. For instance the strafing of refugee civilians on the roads to slow down the advance of enemy troops. A cold blooded thing to do but highly effective as a tactic.
elenos
Back to Top
ChickenShoes View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 08-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 152
  Quote ChickenShoes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 23:07
Originally posted by elenos

How can I say this without offending somebody? Hitler was human! Not only was he human but he was a leader, somehow he could collect together people that listened to him. What if he had been an idiot? Then he would have ended up being what he already was, a chest beating trade union leader. This one barking dog managed to slip the union lead, and came to power in a series of illegal but brilliant moves.

His grasp of war tactics seemed remarkably astute at first. Hit hard and fast before the sods have a chance to move. Some say this wisdom came on the advice of others but all leaders need cooperate with others to form a semblance of government. Early on he made a deal with the army and had the brownshirts liquidated; so he had to go along with the army recommendations for a while. He had an ace up his sleeve in formation of the Gestapo, they were not just into brutality but bending minds to suit their will by any means. Even the army became intimidated by their power

 
 
 
 
I wouldn't say his military notions were even remarkably astute in the beginning. He was a master politician with an amazing poker face. He was skilled in the art of manipulation, but he did not invent blitzkrieg or any of the tactics used in World War II, he just oversaw them.
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 21:49
Originally posted by Earl Aster

Yes, I suppose since the pact of steel in 1939(?), the Soviets were not expecting any kind of attack from the Nazis and their military was not mobilised. I've heard that Stalin did start a re-armourment programme (which further strengthens your point), but for that same reason, doesn't that suggest that he was expecting something to come? Stalin was an isolationalist and unlike Trotsky, didn't believe in invasion for furthering the cause of world communism. If that's the case, then what else could he have been arming for if he hadn't had suspected a Nazi invasion? I suppose the civil war would have made him suspicious of the new republics in Europe, but he can't have been re-armouring just for that...
 
Of course he was expecting the attack. Both parties view the pact as a temporary measure to buy some time. SU and 3D reich were antagonists from the very beginning.
 
However, Stalin was convinced that the attack wouldn't start until 1943 and that Hitler would not attack until Britain was defeated. So, he supressed all the talks about the coming invasion and didn't trust the reliable reports from numerous sources which were saying about the attack even naming its exact date, June, 22. He believed that those rumors are "British provocations" etc.
 
When the invasion started he was very shocked. He said smth. like: Hitler fooled me, what a fool I am...
 
His "foolishness" caused USSR millions of lifes...
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 21:37
This discussion is getting so convoluted over who did what and why. Stalin rearmed for he suspected a Chinese invasion to the South. He couldn't live  the way he did without suspecting somebofy of something. The point is he had crack units all kitted ready up for winter to repel an Chinese invasion. Russia's finest skiers and marksmen sat there and twiddled their thumbs while the Germans invaded and yet were not released!
elenos
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 16:37
Yes, I suppose since the pact of steel in 1939(?), the Soviets were not expecting any kind of attack from the Nazis and their military was not mobilised. I've heard that Stalin did start a re-armourment programme (which further strengthens your point), but for that same reason, doesn't that suggest that he was expecting something to come? Stalin was an isolationalist and unlike Trotsky, didn't believe in invasion for furthering the cause of world communism. If that's the case, then what else could he have been arming for if he hadn't had suspected a Nazi invasion? I suppose the civil war would have made him suspicious of the new republics in Europe, but he can't have been re-armouring just for that...
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 10:56
Originally posted by Earl Aster

Oh. Fair enough- Modern world history isn't my forte, but I always thought that it was the winter. I don't understand, though - the red army was always renowned for being ill-equipped and undersupplied.
 
This is a very dangerous myth, which actually let Germans to the trap.
 
Red Army was well-equiped and well supplied. The main difficulty it faced during the first stage of the war, was the bad command.
 
Stalin destroyed 80% of talented officer corpse during his "purges" in 1936-38.
 
Russian command at the beginning of the war (except some notable commanders like Zhukov) was a joke compare to German.
 
One of them Budennyi (the hero of the Russian Civil War) seriously considered the deployment of massive cavalry armies agaisnt the German tanks etc.
 
Besides, because of Stalin's shortsight (he prohibited any defence preparations, although he perfectly new form numerous sources that Germans were going to attack on June, 22) caused the terrible mess in the whole organization system of the Red Army in summer 1941.
 
This is why in that phase of the War Germans looked much superior. 60% of Soviet aircracfts were destroyed in the first hours after the invasion in the airfields. Tanks didn't had fuel, cause they were not expecting to go to the battle and so on.
 
Since the most of the military industry located in the Western part of the Soviet Union (which relatively fast was occupied by Germans) it took some time to restore near the Ural mointains, where a lot of military plants were relocated from Belorussia, Ukrain and Western Russia.
 
It indeed, caused some temporary problems with supplies, but not for a long. By the middle of 1942, Soviet military industry already started to overplay the German one.
 
However a lot of depended on the commanders. For example, brilliant Zhukov routed Japanese army in 1938 at the battle of Nomohan, even despite of the negative effect of the "purges." This defeat BTW caused Japan to believe that it wouldn't be able to defeat USSR on the land and instead it would be better to attack the Western Powers in the Pacific.
 
Some quotes concerning the battle, which are related to the Soviet army:
 
 
in 1938 and 1939 Japan faced a vastly different challenge from the Red Army successor to the Czarist armies neo-feudal levies, this time from a USSR, resilient in its Communist motherland defiance of a capitalist world. Japan's military leaders failed to register the Red Army's military competence, forged in the Russian civil war, honed by mutually advantageous assistance from German military experts in the 1920s, and given teeth through the mass production of superior armour, capable bombers and fighters, and up-to-date artillery. Japanese intelligence reported that Stalin's purges of the officer corps and the social dislocation and misery occasioned by the first Five Year Plan, and collectivization of agriculture, had weakened the USSR's capacity to respond to military challenge. They were wrong.
However, during the Finnish campaign in 1939, the Soviet Army performed much worse, again, mainly due to the TERRIBLE COMMAND, although having total material superiority over Finns.
 
Hitler made a wrong decision about the Soviet military capabilites after the Finnish campaign. Instead of examing the battle of Nomohan, which was a perfect evidence of the Soviet military might he focused on the winter war 1939-1940.
 
If commanded by able generals Soviet army was a very dangerous opponent for Germans, which unfortunately wasn't the case in 1941.
 
The reasons for the Soviet defeats were mainly the bad command and numerous flaws in Stalin's strategy, not the technical inferiority and bad organization.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 07:12
Oh. Fair enough- Modern world history isn't my forte, but I always thought that it was the winter. I don't understand, though - the red army was always renowned for being ill-equipped and undersupplied.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 20:13
Originally posted by Earl Aster

Originally posted by Earl Aster

I don't see how they could have done it. The Soviet citizens were pushed into battle by a brutal regime and had been indoctrinated beforehand. Although overall they had inferior weaponry to the Nazis (Well, apart from the T-34, PE-2 Peshka and others), the sheer size would have made it impossible, even if the Germans had managed to defeat the Soviets at Kursk and Stalingrad. If they did, they would have just got bogged down and down into the winter and probably would have eventually experienced gurellia warfare.
 
This is a very distorted picture of Sovier military capabilities. By the middle of the war Soviet Military production surprassed German not only by numbers but by the quality.
 
Soviet tanks, machine guns, aircrafts, tanks etc. not only were not inferior, but actually were better than German weapons.
 
You gave example of T-34, and perhaps about 80% of the Red Army's tank forces consited of this machine.
 
As about the numbers, the numbers didn't save Chinese from the defeats from Japanese. Even in 1944, when the war was going to the end Japanese were able to seriously beat, numerically much superior Chinese.
 
This war, was win not by numbers and winters, but mainly by Industrial production and access to the resources.
 
...That's...just what I said in the brackets, Sarmat12 (add to that the Tokarev automatic rifle and the dagatarev machine gun, and the IL2 Sturmovik dive bomber). By speaking about inferior weaponry, I also mean the infrastructure of the logistics that the Soviets had - they had endless supply trouble, and the German supply system was much more advanced.
 
This war, was win not by numbers and winters, but mainly by Industrial production and access to the resources.
 
Quite, but numbers and winters had a pretty big part to play- ask any military historian of the 20th century. For the majority of invaders of Russia, it's been the winter and supplies, not so much the numbers, I would agree, but certainly the winter did play a large part, I would disagree with you there.
 
 
Please list this "majority of invaders":
 
Just the most famous ones: Mongolo-Tatars, Teutonian knights, Poles, Swedes (Charles XII), Napoleon, Germans.
 
Which one was defeated by winters? It's believed that Napoleon was. But, in fact, winter didn't play a big part in his defeat. Much bigger role was played by the poor supply sistem. All the other were defeated MILITARY by Russians.
 
As for the winters which defeated Germans in Russia, it was a myth created by Hitler in order to justify somehow the defeat of Arians by "the inferior race."
 
Simple as that.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 19:11
Originally posted by Earl Aster

I don't see how they could have done it. The Soviet citizens were pushed into battle by a brutal regime and had been indoctrinated beforehand. Although overall they had inferior weaponry to the Nazis (Well, apart from the T-34, PE-2 Peshka and others), the sheer size would have made it impossible, even if the Germans had managed to defeat the Soviets at Kursk and Stalingrad. If they did, they would have just got bogged down and down into the winter and probably would have eventually experienced gurellia warfare.
 
This is a very distorted picture of Sovier military capabilities. By the middle of the war Soviet Military production surprassed German not only by numbers but by the quality.
 
Soviet tanks, machine guns, aircrafts, tanks etc. not only were not inferior, but actually were better than German weapons.
 
You gave example of T-34, and perhaps about 80% of the Red Army's tank forces consited of this machine.
 
As about the numbers, the numbers didn't save Chinese from the defeats from Japanese. Even in 1944, when the war was going to the end Japanese were able to seriously beat, numerically much superior Chinese.
 
This war, was win not by numbers and winters, but mainly by Industrial production and access to the resources.
 
...That's...just what I said in the brackets, Sarmat12 (add to that the Tokarev automatic rifle and the dagatarev machine gun, and the IL2 Sturmovik dive bomber). By speaking about inferior weaponry, I also mean the infrastructure of the logistics that the Soviets had - they had endless supply trouble, and the German supply system was much more advanced.
 
This war, was win not by numbers and winters, but mainly by Industrial production and access to the resources.
 
Quite, but numbers and winters had a pretty big part to play- ask any military historian of the 20th century. For the majority of invaders of Russia, it's been the winter and supplies, not so much the numbers, I would agree, but certainly the winter did play a large part, I would disagree with you there.
 

Edited by Earl Aster - 15-Jul-2007 at 19:12
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 00:49
Originally posted by Earl Aster

I don't see how they could have done it. The Soviet citizens were pushed into battle by a brutal regime and had been indoctrinated beforehand. Although overall they had inferior weaponry to the Nazis (Well, apart from the T-34, PE-2 Peshka and others), the sheer size would have made it impossible, even if the Germans had managed to defeat the Soviets at Kursk and Stalingrad. If they did, they would have just got bogged down and down into the winter and probably would have eventually experienced gurellia warfare.
 
This is a very distorted picture of Sovier military capabilities. By the middle of the war Soviet Military production surprassed German not only by numbers but by the quality.
 
Soviet tanks, machine guns, aircrafts, tanks etc. not only were not inferior, but actually were better than German weapons.
 
You gave example of T-34, and perhaps about 80% of the Red Army's tank forces consited of this machine.
 
As about the numbers, the numbers didn't save Chinese from the defeats from Japanese. Even in 1944, when the war was going to the end Japanese were able to seriously beat, numerically much superior Chinese.
 
This war, was win not by numbers and winters, but mainly by Industrial production and access to the resources.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 20:53
I agree, the Germans never would have made it, withdrawal was their only real option but that was not to be. Had they pushed on and had impossible victories against the physical factors in their way they were still robbing peter to pay paul. The numbers of battle trained troops held down were desperately needed elsewhere.  
elenos
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.160 seconds.