|
Compulsory army duties in Europe (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fledz |
They made a critical mistake of splitting their forces. I watched an awesome doco on the History Channel a few years ago which focused on that. They should have just held the eastern side and gone full out west to crush the UK. Instead they under-committed to both sides and then also were focused on North Africa too.
In hindsight, they should have crushed the UK then turned east to beat the Russians. That would have made it insanely difficult for the Americans to do anything.
It's lucky that it turned out that way for the good of the world.
Nou does say a lot of stupid but if there's one thing he knows it's military history. His view above is pretty spot on and factual. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
They made a critical mistake of splitting their forces. I watched an awesome doco on the History Channel a few years ago which focused on that. They should have just held the eastern side and gone full out west to crush the UK. Instead they under-committed to both sides and then also were focused on North Africa too.
In hindsight, they should have crushed the UK then turned east to beat the Russians. That would have made it insanely difficult for the Americans to do anything.
It's lucky that it turned out that way for the good of the world.
Nou does say a lot of stupid but if there's one thing he knows it's military history. His view above is pretty spot on and factual. |
Yeah I was never denying anything he said though; I was saying Russia were the opposing force that won the war, and that no other allied power had as much impact in the 'winning' of the war (in response to Srussell's USA crap). That has nearly nothing to do with Germany shooting themselves in the foot (which I agreed with).
Near the end of the war Hitler was so paranoid he took all the power of the armies into his own hands, despite the fact the generals he ousted were good, and he was a strategist, and was mentally screwed and drug-ed at this time (and of course, no one man could control such a huge force anyway)-- This fact is why Meat is right- Germany didn't destroy the Nazis, Hitler did because he went nuts and got rid of all the people who had helped him get to where they were when they were strongest. No question that had a big impact on them losing; but I'm just saying that if any ONE beat the Nazis it was them Ruskies...
But yes, empires do always collapse before they're taken down; but the original discussion which I was talking about was in response to Srussell's USA ended the war. |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | | ut the original discussion which I was talking about was in response to Srussell's USA ended the war. |
And I have made many valid points argueing for compulsory military that has gone unanswered, but you don't see me complaining about the discussion derailing.
:toothless |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
|
Nou, you're absolutely correct in that poor planning of Barbarossa was a material contributor of the eastern front turning when it did; however, playing the what if game just kind of clouds the issue. I mean you could argue that if they had remembered the rail lines were different sizes, had proper clothing, built an adequate supply line, ect. that they would have won... but they didn't. On the flip side one could just as credibly argue that even with all the proper planning the Soviets still would have one because the bulk of their best forces were not present for the initial stages of Barbarossa and would likely have been able to repell the Germans once they arrived on the front back from Manchuria. You could also argue that if Stalin had planned better the Germans wouldn't have even made it out of Poland. Speculation can be fun but not fruitful. The most important factors for the Soviets winning the second great war were entirely independent of the German failing, particularly; a vast supply of fighting aged men, iron clad desire to defeat the Germans, and a strong enough resolve to suffer incredible casualties and still keep fighting. |
|
|
| stren |
| We used to have it until recently as well. There were ways for avoid this stuff |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Nou, you're absolutely correct in that poor planning of Barbarossa was a material contributor of the eastern front turning when it did; however, playing the what if game just kind of clouds the issue. I mean you could argue that if they had remembered the rail lines were different sizes, had proper clothing, built an adequate supply line, ect. that they would have won... but they didn't. On the flip side one could just as credibly argue that even with all the proper planning the Soviets still would have one because the bulk of their best forces were not present for the initial stages of Barbarossa and would likely have been able to repell the Germans once they arrived on the front back from Manchuria. You could also argue that if Stalin had planned better the Germans wouldn't have even made it out of Poland. Speculation can be fun but not fruitful. The most important factors for the Soviets winning the second great war were entirely independent of the German failing, particularly; a vast supply of fighting aged men, iron clad desire to defeat the Germans, and a strong enough resolve to suffer incredible casualties and still keep fighting. |
My argument hinges though on the defeat of Great Britain, where a two front war for the Germans would become impossible due to the inability of the Allies to stage a major invasion from there. Remember that a lot of the North African campaign was run from the UK, and if the North Atlantic had been made useless due to no where to go, the mid-Atlantic would become fertile hunting grounds for German U-boats against convoys taking a much longer route to resupply an allied effort in Africa.
Im not arguing so much that Barbarossa was the failure, as much as I am arguing that Operation Sea Lion's failure to be pursued was the biggest failure. The UK's ability to remain a threat to Germany was the real down fall to the Nazi war machine. From there they launched a second front in France and continuously harassed German industry with bomber raids.
Speculation is fun though, its not fruitful, but it is fun. :p Also its not like we have to solve anything so speculating on past events is rather harmless. :p |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
My argument hinges though on the defeat of Great Britain, where a two front war for the Germans would become impossible due to the inability of the Allies to stage a major invasion from there. Remember that a lot of the North African campaign was run from the UK, and if the North Atlantic had been made useless due to no where to go, the mid-Atlantic would become fertile hunting grounds for German U-boats against convoys taking a much longer route to resupply an allied effort in Africa.
Im not arguing so much that Barbarossa was the failure, as much as I am arguing that Operation Sea Lion's failure to be pursued was the biggest failure. The UK's ability to remain a threat to Germany was the real down fall to the Nazi war machine. From there they launched a second front in France and continuously harassed German industry with bomber raids.
Speculation is fun though, its not fruitful, but it is fun. :p Also its not like we have to solve anything so speculating on past events is rather harmless. :p |
The funny thing about Germany going after both the UK and USSR at the same time is that Hitler goes on at length in Mein Kampf as to what a terrible error this would be and then a scant 16 years later he does exactly that.
I still believe the Soviets would have won the war, even without US/UK aid or involvement... it would have taken a hell of a lot longer but eventually they would have drowned the Germans in blood. |
|
|
| infiniteJEST |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Kangaroos with bomb vests |
| quote: | Originally posted by Banora
I wanted to train kangaroos how to operate bomb vests. |
Bomb pouches. This keeps the shoulders free from restraint - for efficient boxing. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| The Americans' landing on Normandy is what won the war. Hasn't anyone seen Saving Private Ryan? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by infiniteJEST
Bomb pouches. This keeps the shoulders free from restraint - for efficient boxing. |
You're hired! |
|
|
| infiniteJEST |
>Hired to conceptualize Australian war.
>Not greeted by 'Crocodile' Dundee.
>mfw |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
You're part Austrian?! :haha:
*points and laughs* |
i thought you knew this?
remember i was in innsbruck over the summer and at some point i mentioned in a thread here that you shoudl drive down to go to big clob. i didn't see anything going on in innsbruck while i was there tho so i didn't follow up on it. there actually was a really decent tech party that weekend that i went to - can't remember who played, but somebody recognizable.
better parties in vienna tho. |
|
|
|
|
