War in Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the only way Germany could have beaten the USSR was to concentrate on Moscow. If things were as top down as suggested, then taking out Joe and the head was Hitler's only chance.

But his combat ADD, where he would go after this or after that and change directions sealed his fate.

Take out the oil fields in the Caucuses and Moscow and it would have been far harder to beat back the Wehrmacht.

I for one am glad no assassination attempt on Hitler was successful. Had the German generals been given more autonomy, things may have been different. Germany could have won all the real estate for food and fuel they needed to hold out for quite a while. But they made too many mistakes and too many enemies of many sympathetic to their public rationale. (Not to be confused with the sick, private, social agenda.)
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
...

Good points here. Part of the current hatred in Ukraine vs Russians and vice verse is that Ukraine sided with Hitler against Russia after it was "liberated" by Germans....


A massive oversimplification. The truth is that large numbers of Russians also voluntarily served in the German Army at various levels. Some Ukrainians served as fascists. Others fought both sides, most joined the Red Army when it was clear the Germans were simply using the Ukraine for its grain as its citizens starved...
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: d00df00d


The point of the sanctions is to punish the United States for sticking its military where it doesn't belong.




I fixed it for you.

The US has been at least as guilty of the same accusations.

Except that ethnic Russians are a majority in Eastern Ukraine..








Right. Just like all the Chechens Putin butchered for wanting their independence. Do they get their own country now? Can we carve out a Tartar Republic in areas of the Crimea they live in? They don't want to be in Russia.

And you're making a huge assumption about whom wants what. I think I read that a think tank in Kiev came to the conclusion that only about one-third of the population in Eastern Ukraine actively want to join with Russia, the rest are terrified of the spetznaz, er "patriotic Russian Militia members" to voice a genuine opinion...
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Had the German generals been given more autonomy, things may have been different.


I have a slightly different take on that.

Near the beginning of the war that might have been the case, but later the German generals saw that too many mistakes had been made and there was no way to win; resources low, troop levels low, morale low, attempted assassinations, etc.
 
Good point, I'd say that AND had they not squandered so much air power in the Battle of Britain.

Of course, the other side of that coin is perhaps Hitler gave up on Britain too soon. Leaving a place of the US and Britain to stage for the Western Front.

Over all, he bit off more than he could chew and I think that is the case regardless if he went west first, then east or vice versa.

I wonder how it might have turned out had he not gone west at all. Would the Allies have sat back and let Hitler and Stalin battle it out had Hitler not taken his European neighbors to the west?
 
Land has always "belonged" to he who has the might and will to possess it. It doesn't matter who was there first or what the indigenous people want. Never has.

I don't believe that the western powers have the will to go toe-to-toe with Russia over this region. Clearly Putin doesn't either. China could tip the scales either way but I doubt they will take a much harder stance than they already have. The Chinese are in a tight spot on this one and will continue to try to ride the fence indefinitely if they can.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I think the only way Germany could have beaten the USSR was to concentrate on Moscow. If things were as top down as suggested, then taking out Joe and the head was Hitler's only chance.

But his combat ADD, where he would go after this or after that and change directions sealed his fate.

Take out the oil fields in the Caucuses and Moscow and it would have been far harder to beat back the Wehrmacht.

I for one am glad no assassination attempt on Hitler was successful. Had the German generals been given more autonomy, things may have been different. Germany could have won all the real estate for food and fuel they needed to hold out for quite a while. But they made too many mistakes and too many enemies of many sympathetic to their public rationale. (Not to be confused with the sick, private, social agenda.)


That's a myth. Remember the General staff who survived wrote the history on WW2.

Hitler went along with his generals quite often, and when he didn't sometimes he was correct sometimes he was not.

The German army was doomed from the beginning because they ignored their own logistics department. Back in 1940 when Franz Halder and the rest of them were getting all excited about attacking Russia and planning and planting the seed in Hitlers head about how possible it was. They asked the logistics department about the whole idea and I forget the officers name but he was quite good, and he said your nuts. The Russian roads are a joke, and their rail's don't match ours, so your going to get about 700km in and run out of fuel and ammunition. Also the infantry wouldn't be able to ride in on trucks or rail and would have to walk, so the spearheads would be doing a lot of waiting after awhile, which they did.

Guess what he was correct, than what you get is start and stop warfare like in North Africa as supplies come up formations can move. They charged in, the Russians wore them down, they couldn't get replacements, so they ground to a halt. The reason the Germany Army almost froze to death is simply because they lacked the supply vehicles to bring up both winter clothing and ammunition and food. The staff at all three army groups chose the later since you can't stop a Russian Front by throwing jackets and gloves at them.

One of the largest opponents to the entire operation was Guderian who actually had been to Russia and saw the condition of the roads, and had a lot of practical knowledge about tanks and what they are capable of. IE fuel burn and wear. Remember driving armored vehicles over long distances puts a lot of wear on them, armored divisions prefer to move by rail and unload fairly close to the front. This is true to this day.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I think the only way Germany could have beaten the USSR was to concentrate on Moscow. If things were as top down as suggested, then taking out Joe and the head was Hitler's only chance.

But his combat ADD, where he would go after this or after that and change directions sealed his fate.

Take out the oil fields in the Caucuses and Moscow and it would have been far harder to beat back the Wehrmacht.

I for one am glad no assassination attempt on Hitler was successful. Had the German generals been given more autonomy, things may have been different. Germany could have won all the real estate for food and fuel they needed to hold out for quite a while. But they made too many mistakes and too many enemies of many sympathetic to their public rationale. (Not to be confused with the sick, private, social agenda.)


That's a myth. Remember the General staff who survived wrote the history on WW2.

Hitler went along with his generals quite often, and when he didn't sometimes he was correct sometimes he was not.

The German army was doomed from the beginning because they ignored their own logistics department. Back in 1940 when Franz Halder and the rest of them were getting all excited about attacking Russia and planning and planting the seed in Hitlers head about how possible it was. They asked the logistics department about the whole idea and I forget the officers name but he was quite good, and he said your nuts. The Russian roads are a joke, and their rail's don't match ours, so your going to get about 700km in and run out of fuel and ammunition. Also the infantry wouldn't be able to ride in on trucks or rail and would have to walk, so the spearheads would be doing a lot of waiting after awhile, which they did.

Guess what he was correct, than what you get is start and stop warfare like in North Africa as supplies come up formations can move. They charged in, the Russians wore them down, they couldn't get replacements, so they ground to a halt. The reason the Germany Army almost froze to death is simply because they lacked the supply vehicles to bring up both winter clothing and ammunition and food. The staff at all three army groups chose the later since you can't stop a Russian Front by throwing jackets and gloves at them.

One of the largest opponents to the entire operation was Guderian who actually had been to Russia and saw the condition of the roads, and had a lot of practical knowledge about tanks and what they are capable of. IE fuel burn and wear. Remember driving armored vehicles over long distances puts a lot of wear on them, armored divisions prefer to move by rail and unload fairly close to the front. This is true to this day.



For a small army the Nazi used the strategy of Hannibal quite remarkable and efficient. Their downfall was supplies in the cold winter...they should had retreated but they advanced too early they got stuck too far inlet.

Quite interesting considering Alexander the Great vs Hannabil.
Alexandra the Great had the ship(Phoenicians)for supplies which was a major key to Alexandra's conquest. The ship never came to Hannabil's aid(he was land locked in the Alps) had he taken Rome he might had been the greatest. Hannabil had a small window for the ship to aid him in Rome...politics in Carthage prevented that window.
 
Was it the Army ignored their logistics, or those who "tickled Hitlers ear" were the ones he followed?

I.E. the ones who said it couldn't be done were ignored in favor of those who were yes men.

From what I understand, Hitler fostered a climate of competition. Often it became more about telling him what he wanted to hear in order to gain favor with "der Fuhrer."

The logistics of keeping an Armored Division in the field are daunting. Yet the US managed to produce 3 tanks for every 2 by the Germans, most used in the European theater, and they kept them supplied, albeit not always perfectly.

The Soviets also were largely able to keep their double the number of tanks used by Germany in the field.

So logistically, it's doable, but granted, at great cost. The Soviets probably had the easiest logistical tail, while the US had the most difficult pipeline to feed.

I still contend Hitler weaken his forces and squandered his resources before even going into the Russian steppe. This only made the impossible task, impossibler
smile.gif


Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I think the only way Germany could have beaten the USSR was to concentrate on Moscow. If things were as top down as suggested, then taking out Joe and the head was Hitler's only chance.

But his combat ADD, where he would go after this or after that and change directions sealed his fate.

Take out the oil fields in the Caucuses and Moscow and it would have been far harder to beat back the Wehrmacht.

I for one am glad no assassination attempt on Hitler was successful. Had the German generals been given more autonomy, things may have been different. Germany could have won all the real estate for food and fuel they needed to hold out for quite a while. But they made too many mistakes and too many enemies of many sympathetic to their public rationale. (Not to be confused with the sick, private, social agenda.)


That's a myth. Remember the General staff who survived wrote the history on WW2.

Hitler went along with his generals quite often, and when he didn't sometimes he was correct sometimes he was not.

The German army was doomed from the beginning because they ignored their own logistics department. Back in 1940 when Franz Halder and the rest of them were getting all excited about attacking Russia and planning and planting the seed in Hitlers head about how possible it was. They asked the logistics department about the whole idea and I forget the officers name but he was quite good, and he said your nuts. The Russian roads are a joke, and their rail's don't match ours, so your going to get about 700km in and run out of fuel and ammunition. Also the infantry wouldn't be able to ride in on trucks or rail and would have to walk, so the spearheads would be doing a lot of waiting after awhile, which they did.

Guess what he was correct, than what you get is start and stop warfare like in North Africa as supplies come up formations can move. They charged in, the Russians wore them down, they couldn't get replacements, so they ground to a halt. The reason the Germany Army almost froze to death is simply because they lacked the supply vehicles to bring up both winter clothing and ammunition and food. The staff at all three army groups chose the later since you can't stop a Russian Front by throwing jackets and gloves at them.

One of the largest opponents to the entire operation was Guderian who actually had been to Russia and saw the condition of the roads, and had a lot of practical knowledge about tanks and what they are capable of. IE fuel burn and wear. Remember driving armored vehicles over long distances puts a lot of wear on them, armored divisions prefer to move by rail and unload fairly close to the front. This is true to this day.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Was it the Army ignored their logistics, or those who "tickled Hitlers ear" were the ones he followed?

I.E. the ones who said it couldn't be done were ignored in favor of those who were yes men.

From what I understand, Hitler fostered a climate of competition. Often it became more about telling him what he wanted to hear in order to gain favor with "der Fuhrer."

The logistics of keeping an Armored Division in the field are daunting. Yet the US managed to produce 3 tanks for every 2 by the Germans, most used in the European theater, and they kept them supplied, albeit not always perfectly.

The Soviets also were largely able to keep their double the number of tanks used by Germany in the field.

So logistically, it's doable, but granted, at great cost. The Soviets probably had the easiest logistical tail, while the US had the most difficult pipeline to feed.

I still contend Hitler weaken his forces and squandered his resources before even going into the Russian steppe. This only made the impossible task, impossibler
smile.gif


Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I think the only way Germany could have beaten the USSR was to concentrate on Moscow. If things were as top down as suggested, then taking out Joe and the head was Hitler's only chance.

But his combat ADD, where he would go after this or after that and change directions sealed his fate.

Take out the oil fields in the Caucuses and Moscow and it would have been far harder to beat back the Wehrmacht.

I for one am glad no assassination attempt on Hitler was successful. Had the German generals been given more autonomy, things may have been different. Germany could have won all the real estate for food and fuel they needed to hold out for quite a while. But they made too many mistakes and too many enemies of many sympathetic to their public rationale. (Not to be confused with the sick, private, social agenda.)


That's a myth. Remember the General staff who survived wrote the history on WW2.

Hitler went along with his generals quite often, and when he didn't sometimes he was correct sometimes he was not.

The German army was doomed from the beginning because they ignored their own logistics department. Back in 1940 when Franz Halder and the rest of them were getting all excited about attacking Russia and planning and planting the seed in Hitlers head about how possible it was. They asked the logistics department about the whole idea and I forget the officers name but he was quite good, and he said your nuts. The Russian roads are a joke, and their rail's don't match ours, so your going to get about 700km in and run out of fuel and ammunition. Also the infantry wouldn't be able to ride in on trucks or rail and would have to walk, so the spearheads would be doing a lot of waiting after awhile, which they did.

Guess what he was correct, than what you get is start and stop warfare like in North Africa as supplies come up formations can move. They charged in, the Russians wore them down, they couldn't get replacements, so they ground to a halt. The reason the Germany Army almost froze to death is simply because they lacked the supply vehicles to bring up both winter clothing and ammunition and food. The staff at all three army groups chose the later since you can't stop a Russian Front by throwing jackets and gloves at them.

One of the largest opponents to the entire operation was Guderian who actually had been to Russia and saw the condition of the roads, and had a lot of practical knowledge about tanks and what they are capable of. IE fuel burn and wear. Remember driving armored vehicles over long distances puts a lot of wear on them, armored divisions prefer to move by rail and unload fairly close to the front. This is true to this day.


The US Army had its fair share of problems in 1942 and 43 for that matter. The only reason we did OK logistically is because we simply threw our massive manufacturing weight behind the problem, we didn't need to be good.

People in this country don't really understand the scale of the Eastern Front. The front stretched roughly the length of the US east coast. The Soviets also covered up a lot of the largest battles for political reasons and only in the past decade are they coming to light. For example their was another tank battle in 1942 of equal or greater size than Kursk and its largely unknown.

Also the invasion of France in 1944 no where near represents the scale and scope of the eastern theater of operations. Even at that late stage 65% of the German ground forces were still on the Eastern front, up until than I believe it had gone as high as the mid 80% range.


Contrary to popular belief and a lot of books written by the generals afterwards to make themselves look better Hitler did not make every single decision in Germany for the 12 years he was in charge. Most of the influential German officers thought that they really could get the Russians and Hitler was already pre disposed to the idea. Hitler just didn't wake up one morning and call a meeting and say lets invade Russia. Their was a lot of preparation before hand and talks about it by not only him but the OKW general staff. Having said that the general staff kept dissenting ideas away from Hitler like their logistics department guys.

The German army was out numbered in just about every theater in regards to armor since day one. They also had the poorest quality tanks until 1943 when the Panther and Tiger were sent into the field. The up gunned Panzer IV was marginal at best. IMHO the reason the myth of the superior German tanks is so strong in the West is because we arrived to the party late when the Tiger and Panther were in full production and as we invaded France we came across some very good SS divisions that were refitting in the case of Market Garden or transferred to the West to shore up the defenses. We were not fighting the green German army in France of 1940 with Panzer 1, 2, 3 tanks, which the Sherman was superior to. Instead the largely green US Army came up against battle hardened experienced soldiers who had just left the fire and [censored] of the east with some of the best tanks in the world at the time. No wonder they left such an impression.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: d00df00d


What you're implying is that our geopolitical mistakes make it okay for Russia to be geopolitically reckless.
.


Yes, and I'll tell you why there IS a difference...the US for decades has advertised itself as the most noble country on earth, and yet, it constantly does everything contrary to that supposed claim.

You really don't think that disconnect isn't recognized by other countries, nations and their own peoples? That is why the USA has a BIGGER problem when it comes to credibility. If you are going to claim a superiority you better be "better" than all the rest. If not, then the scrutiny will be of a much higher level.




I noticed there were NO replies to this post. I wonder why?
thankyou2.gif
crackmeup2.gif
lol.gif
48.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I noticed there were NO replies to this post.

What you said is true; perhaps that's why. I'm surprised this thread is sticking to "historical" issues more than "political" ones; hence, no lock. Having been able to point to the USSR and the Eastern Bloc as the "bad guys" for years helped the U.S. look far better in comparison, despite U.S. historical errors. So, perhaps this is good in the long run for America.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: d00df00d


What you're implying is that our geopolitical mistakes make it okay for Russia to be geopolitically reckless.
.


Yes, and I'll tell you why there IS a difference...the US for decades has advertised itself as the most noble country on earth, and yet, it constantly does everything contrary to that supposed claim.

You really don't think that disconnect isn't recognized by other countries, nations and their own peoples? That is why the USA has a BIGGER problem when it comes to credibility. If you are going to claim a superiority you better be "better" than all the rest. If not, then the scrutiny will be of a much higher level.




I noticed there were NO replies to this post. I wonder why?
thankyou2.gif
crackmeup2.gif
lol.gif
48.gif


You wonder why.....people ignore you? Perhaps it has to do with many of your outlandish posts?
Maybe because you say things that aren't completely factual....yet always make sure that just enough facts remain in order to make others fall for those paranoid conspiracy ideas.
You are also about as predictable in commentary as the next conspiracy theorist. In other words....folks are getting bored of your incessant distrust and high level of paranoia.
 
Last edited:
Because you speak in absolutes. You make an absolutely outlandish statement that EVERYTHING the US does is counter to a noble purpose.

Not really a reasonable critique.

Had you taken a more reasonable approach, suggesting that some thing we've done are good, some are bad and you might have some who are willing to discuss the subject.

Instead, you've stated your black and white position, and apparently, there really isn't anything to discuss. Your mind is made up. Why do you expect discourse or debate?

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: d00df00d


What you're implying is that our geopolitical mistakes make it okay for Russia to be geopolitically reckless.
.


Yes, and I'll tell you why there IS a difference...the US for decades has advertised itself as the most noble country on earth, and yet, it constantly does everything contrary to that supposed claim.

You really don't think that disconnect isn't recognized by other countries, nations and their own peoples? That is why the USA has a BIGGER problem when it comes to credibility. If you are going to claim a superiority you better be "better" than all the rest. If not, then the scrutiny will be of a much higher level.




I noticed there were NO replies to this post. I wonder why?
thankyou2.gif
crackmeup2.gif
lol.gif
48.gif
 
Well what I hear from many regarding that post appears to confirm that my "absolute" statement is accurate overall.


Quote:

I like the idea of a multi-polar world where no one elite group has a monopoly, it helps to have them battle one another, it keeps them weak and less able to reach a goal of a neo-feudal world order. That in my view includes the elite in the west, and Israel.




I definitely believe in this absolute statement as well. Divide and conquer, the elite are constantly attempting this with the ordinary citizens so indeed, lets hope that the bickering between themselves continues for a looooong time to come.

I certainly don't find that ordinary politics are a factor in this thread, so there certainly is NO reason for the mods restrict comments.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I certainly don't find that ordinary politics are a factor in this thread, so there certainly is NO reason for the mods restrict comments.


There hasn't been a decent president since Reagan was in office.

There's your thread locking comment right there.
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Well what I hear from many regarding that post appears to confirm that my "absolute" statement is accurate overall.

I agreed with your point, but it is true that we must watch absolute statements. The U.S. has always looked good in the world compared to many other nations, particularly when the competition was the Soviet bloc. So, that's decidedly not an absolute.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: d00df00d


What you're implying is that our geopolitical mistakes make it okay for Russia to be geopolitically reckless.
.


Yes, and I'll tell you why there IS a difference...the US for decades has advertised itself as the most noble country on earth, and yet, it constantly does everything contrary to that supposed claim.

You really don't think that disconnect isn't recognized by other countries, nations and their own peoples? That is why the USA has a BIGGER problem when it comes to credibility. If you are going to claim a superiority you better be "better" than all the rest. If not, then the scrutiny will be of a much higher level.




I noticed there were NO replies to this post. I wonder why?
thankyou2.gif
crackmeup2.gif
lol.gif
48.gif


Honestly?

Because everything I said seemed to prompt you to deepen the hole you've dug for yourself, and I don't feel it's my purpose to help people compromise themselves.

There actually was a response to that post, by the way. I'm humoring you because the response wasn't substantive.
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh


I'd say the wehrmacht pushing to 20 miles outside of moscow and causing 1 million russian casualties tends to qualify as nearly handing them their [censored].


Which only shows how little you know about Russia in general and the Eastern front in particular.

Let's skip over the fact that the RKKA had several defense lines *east* of Moscow in case it did fall. And the fact that the Soviet gov't was in Kuybyshev for the same reason.

Let's skip over the fact that the Wehrmacht, the Heer in particular, was geared for short campaigns. And certainly not for one in winter.

Let's go with your yard stick, casualties.

Let's start with the fact, 'It's becoming ever clearer', Halder wrote in his diary on August 11, that we underestimated the strength of the Russian colossus not only in the economic and transportation sphere but above all in the military. At the beginning we reckoned with some 200 enemy divisions and we have already identified 360. When a dozen of them are destroyed the Russians throw in another dozen. On this broad expanse our front is too thin. It has no depth. As a result , the repeated enemy attacks often met with some success'. Rundstedt put it bluntly to Allied interrogators after the war. 'I realized', he said, 'soon after the attack began that everything that had been written about Russia was nonsense'.

Let's continue with the fact that while the Axis destroyed the RKKA's first strategic echelon, the numerical balance didn't change any. Why? The second and third echelons were still in place, to say nothing of the 14 million mobilized before the end of 1941.

The Russians suffered roughly 35 million casualties among all branches. (Army/Navy/NKVD) Another 20 million civilians. And yet, not only did they get within 20 miles of Berlin, and took it, they got to the Elbe.
 
Last edited:
If this is going to be a USA-vs.-Russia debate, why not stick to current realities?

If there were a conflict between America and Russia, it probably would NOT be a war to take and occupy (much) territory. It would most likely be an attack on Russia's military apparatus to undermine its ability to make war. In other words, it'd be about sinking their ships, destroying their military ports and airfields, crippling their C&C, and so on. At that point, it's just a matter of our commanders, soldiers, and hardware vs. theirs. Does anyone really think Russia could do much more than put up a valiant fight in that kind of conflict?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top