|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jan 25, 2021 17:50:17 GMT
That is why you don't start a war when you are in a war. For example Napoleon when he was fighting spain but, decided to attack Russia in 1812. I have also learned this in Age of History. Taking one at a time so the best method. You have to bog down when fighting a two front war as managing resources and manpower is not easy in such case. Yes, the Germans should have given Rommel more divisions in Africa, not to stop the British (who weren't really a threat, and, Darth Vader, weren't even important enough to be considered a front), but to stop the Soviets. I think Operation Barbarossa was a good idea. 1. Stalin had personally said not to be preparing for war-making against the Germans. 2. The Reds were not the most trustworthy of allies. 3. An ideological conflict of the likes of this was major propaganda material. 4.The germans were by far better trained with mostly better material. In addition, how would they take out a Britain who said the would never surrender? Even D-Day was a miracle with British, American, and Canadian production, and with massive air and naval superiority. The German had no real navy, none of this production, and even if they were able to Capture the British Isles, they would be a vastly undersupplied force due to allied naval superiority. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jan 25, 2021 18:15:53 GMT
They were going to fight against the Soviets anyway, so why not do it when they had all the advantages they could. Even at Stalingrad and encircled, the Germans still inflicted 3:1 casualties on the Soviets.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jan 26, 2021 1:50:27 GMT
They were going to fight against the Soviets anyway, so why not do it when they had all the advantages they could. Even at Stalingrad and encircled, the Germans still inflicted 3:1 casualties on the Soviets. Also, Soviet union is the one which really lost the war because they had lost a lot of people. It's aftereffects is Russia still has less population. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jan 26, 2021 7:35:58 GMT
They were going to fight against the Soviets anyway, so why not do it when they had all the advantages they could. Even at Stalingrad and encircled, the Germans still inflicted 3:1 casualties on the Soviets. Also Gerd von Rundstedt, how about doing a lecture on ww2? It will be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Iron Duke on Jan 26, 2021 13:41:16 GMT
Gerd von Rundstedt , what about the North Africa Campaign of ww2. If Hitler had supported Rommel more than just giving 4 divisions, the outcome of the war would have been different. They then could have pushed North from Saudi Arabia and surround and destroy the Russian Army, Caucasus, Moscow I think. What do you say Iron Duke ? I don't know enough about it tbh, maybe he'd have been better off withdrawing from NA altogether and deploying Rommel and his troops in the Russian campaign? I saw an interesting video making the case that he had to invade Russia for the oil in the Caucasus region. I can't find it rn but it was on this channel: linkIf I could go back and give Hitler one piece of advice though it would be to disavow Japan after Pearl Harbour  |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Jan 27, 2021 2:31:50 GMT
I don't know enough about it tbh, maybe he'd have been better off withdrawing from NA altogether and deploying Rommel and his troops in the Russian campaign? I saw an interesting video making the case that he had to invade Russia for the oil in the Caucasus region. I can't find it rn but it was on this channel:Β linkIf I could go back and give Hitler one piece of advice though it would be to disavow Japan after Pearl HarbourΒ To run for the Caucasus and Stalingrad was the fatal Error of Hitler that primary led to the failure of the Battle of Moscow and with it all WWII. And it was his personal decision - although he got warned he changed the plan Barbarossa on 28 Jul 41. He refused all advices. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jan 27, 2021 2:45:06 GMT
I don't know enough about it tbh, maybe he'd have been better off withdrawing from NA altogether and deploying Rommel and his troops in the Russian campaign? I saw an interesting video making the case that he had to invade Russia for the oil in the Caucasus region. I can't find it rn but it was on this channel: linkIf I could go back and give Hitler one piece of advice though it would be to disavow Japan after Pearl Harbour Also, Hitler would have declared war on America for sure because - 1. He dosen't listen to anybody 2. America was not a major military power (Not even in top 10) back then. 3. Then there was this huge ocean known as the Atlantic ocean and another known as "Logistics" He surely didn't expect America to pack a punch. Before I knew these facts, even I used to wonder why he declared war on America. I woudln't be surprised if Iron Duke's advice will not be taken serious. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jan 27, 2021 2:48:04 GMT
I don't know enough about it tbh, maybe he'd have been better off withdrawing from NA altogether and deploying Rommel and his troops in the Russian campaign? I saw an interesting video making the case that he had to invade Russia for the oil in the Caucasus region. I can't find it rn but it was on this channel: linkIf I could go back and give Hitler one piece of advice though it would be to disavow Japan after Pearl Harbour To run for the Caucasus and Stalingrad was the fatal Error of Hitler that primary led to the failure of the Battle of Moscow and with it all WWII. And it was his personal decision - although he got warned he changed the plan Barbarossa on 28 Jul 41. He refused all advices. But ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ, Germany were running short of oil at that time and the Romanian oil was not enough. Hence he decided to go for Caucasus. The only error he did was to delay the operation. |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Jan 27, 2021 3:14:40 GMT
To run for the Caucasus and Stalingrad was the fatal Error of Hitler that primary led to the failure of the Battle of Moscow and with it all WWII. And it was his personal decision - although he got warned he changed the plan Barbarossa on 28 Jul 41. He refused all advices. ButΒ ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ, Germany were running short of oil at that time and the Romanian oil was not enough. Hence he decided to go for Caucasus. The only error he did was to delay the operation. If you plan for years an all-or-nothing attack on your enemy's capital, I think it is not recommended to move important tank divisions to north and south just before the decisive battle. The delay came even on top! Fighting in summer uniforms is not a good Idea when you have to conquer Moscow in January. In the end the germans got nothing: no oil, no Moscow and Stalingrad was the fanal. After the failure to conquer Moscow before the winter the war was lost. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jan 27, 2021 4:09:48 GMT
But ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ , Germany were running short of oil at that time and the Romanian oil was not enough. Hence he decided to go for Caucasus. The only error he did was to delay the operation. If you plan for years an all-or-nothing attack on your enemy's capital, I think it is not recommended to move important tank divisions to north and south just before the decisive battle. The delay came even on top! Fighting in summer uniforms is not a good Idea when you have to conquer Moscow in January. In the end the germans got nothing: no oil, no Moscow and Stalingrad was the fanal. After the failure to conquer Moscow before the winter the war was lost. Or as Iron Duke said, he could have withdrawn Rommel in North Africa and use him in Caucasus where as the main army attack Moscow. |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Jan 27, 2021 5:09:58 GMT
If you plan for years an all-or-nothing attack on your enemy's capital, I think it is not recommended to move important tank divisions to north and south just before the decisive battle. The delay came even on top! Fighting in summer uniforms is not a good Idea when you have to conquer Moscow in January. In the end the germans got nothing: no oil, no Moscow and Stalingrad was the fanal. After the failure to conquer Moscow before the winter the war was lost. Or as Iron Duke said, he could have withdrawn Rommel in North Africa and use him in Caucasus where as the main army attack Moscow. At this time germany had more than enough material to send to the eastfront. The german headquarter hardly underestimated the economical and logistical strength of the cccp. Hitler had no real strategical skills, but after the amazing fast defeat of france (immagine: just 25years after 1914-1918 with it's static front) and with much too much amphetamine, he thought he can manage it. He fired the best generals (for protesting against the errors) - took the commamd - failed before Moscow - and declared war on the United States All in Dec 41 Very Napoleonic |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jan 27, 2021 6:44:37 GMT
Or as Iron Duke said, he could have withdrawn Rommel in North Africa and use him in Caucasus where as the main army attack Moscow. At this time germany had more than enough material to send to the eastfront. The german headquarter hardly underestimated the economical and logistical strength of the cccp. Hitler had no real strategical skills, but after the amazing fast defeat of france (immagine: just 25years after 1914-1918 with it's static front) and with much too much amphetamine, he thought he can manage it. He fired the best generals (for protesting against the errors) - took the commamd - failed before Moscow - and declared war on the United States All in Dec 41 Very Napoleonic Haha.. very Napoleonic. He got knocked out in similar fashion to him. Forgettable Dec 41 for the axis. Wait... was it Dec 44 when he declared war on U.S? It would have been interesting if Soviets were on axis. Hitler could have used them till knocking out Britain and could have turned on him. Just as a bad hour spoils the whole game, a bad month sealed his fate. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jan 27, 2021 14:10:57 GMT
ButΒ ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ, Germany were running short of oil at that time and the Romanian oil was not enough. Hence he decided to go for Caucasus. The only error he did was to delay the operation. If you plan for years an all-or-nothing attack on your enemy's capital, I think it is not recommended to move important tank divisions to north and south just before the decisive battle. The delay came even on top! Fighting in summer uniforms is not a good Idea when you have to conquer Moscow in January. In the end the germans got nothing: no oil, no Moscow and Stalingrad was the fanal. After the failure to conquer Moscow before the winter the war was lost. If the Soviet capital was taken, it would only be for propaganda value and logistical assistance. The Soviets would keep on fighting. In our timeline, the Germans already had a problem with partisans. Taking Moscow wouldn't mean anything more than taking Rostov-on-don, or Kiev. |
|
|
|
Post by Clausewitz on Jan 27, 2021 18:47:24 GMT
If you plan for years an all-or-nothing attack on your enemy's capital, I think it is not recommended to move important tank divisions to north and south just before the decisive battle. The delay came even on top! Fighting in summer uniforms is not a good Idea when you have to conquer Moscow in January. In the end the germans got nothing: no oil, no Moscow and Stalingrad was the fanal. After the failure to conquer Moscow before the winter the war was lost. If the Soviet capital was taken, it would only be for propaganda value and logistical assistance. The Soviets would keep on fighting. In our timeline, the Germans already had a problem with partisans. Taking Moscow wouldn't mean anything more than taking Rostov-on-don, or Kiev. if the Wehrmacht could have taken Moscow Stalin and his communist regime would be screwed but the Russian people would still fight i guess. russia is to big too conquer and control. It would need millions of Soilder's plus the material (Tanks, plane's and so on) to archive that (Wich Germany didn't had). Germany declared war on the U.S.A after it's ally attacked them (japan 6. Dez 1941) |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jan 28, 2021 1:47:45 GMT
If the Soviet capital was taken, it would only be for propaganda value and logistical assistance. The Soviets would keep on fighting. In our timeline, the Germans already had a problem with partisans. Taking Moscow wouldn't mean anything more than taking Rostov-on-don, or Kiev. if the Wehrmacht could have taken Moscow Stalin and his communist regime would be screwed but the Russian people would still fight i guess. russia is to big too conquer and control. It would need millions of Soilder's plus the material (Tanks, plane's and so on) to archive that (Wich Germany didn't had). Germany declared war on the U.S.A after it's ally attacked them (japan 6. Dez 1941) That is why Hitler planned to conquer only until the Ural Mountains. He would have dumped all the Russians beyond the Ural mountains, leave them to their own fate. He would conduct raids into the Urals to loot the Russians a few times a year, which he planned to celebrate grandly. It amazes me into thinking how close humanity came to destruction and extintion. |
|
