|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 25, 2021 8:39:44 GMT
I guess i'll have to go with Stalingrad, because if the germans captured it, the Russians' morale would have been rekt The main thing with Stalingrad was that it was named after Stalin and losing it would be bad for Stalin's reputation. And more importantly it would cut the Volga and let the Caucasus campaign continue. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Aug 25, 2021 8:48:41 GMT
I guess i'll have to go with Stalingrad, because if the germans captured it, the Russians' morale would have been rekt The main thing with Stalingrad was that it was named after Stalin and losing it would be bad for Stalin's reputation. And more importantly it would cut the Volga and let the Caucasus campaign continue. 1. The military command of the Soviets already knew that Stalingrad would fall quickly and they would be counting the time left on their fingers. It would have been bad for Stalin's reputation, but weren't people already hating him for his draconian policies? 2. Where would they move after Stalingrad? I mean you said Caucasus campaign would continue (I didn't understand this point) |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 25, 2021 9:29:54 GMT
Their only chance was a sudden rush aka Blitzkrieg. They were successful upto a point, when Hitler interfered. They planned to take all 3 (Moscow and the twin grads), ended up taking none. So, the most decisive battle of WW2 in Europe is probably the Balkan campaign as if it hadn't happened or hadn't Italy messed up, Germans could've gotten 40 days more before the winter. Winter was much better for German tanks than Rasput-itsa. Why Balkan Campaign? Most of the German Army was stationed on the Soviet Border when Balkans campaign was going on. Greece surrendered on 23rd of April. Only Crete held out but only 22,000 German paratroopers were involved in invasion of Crete. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Aug 25, 2021 9:41:06 GMT
The votes for Stalingrad have really exploded. Yes, an I really can't understand this. In January 1942 there was no chance anymore for the Nazi to defeat the 'Bolscheweki'. I doubt that this chance ever existed - the german inteligence underestimated the organisatoric, human and industrial potential of the CCCP up to 10 times (multiplicated with the factors' of the supreme race) All non-political generals know this - with Stalingrad one year later, even the last lanzer or grandma was sure that the war is lost. The decive Battle of WW2 was the failiure of Plan Barbarossa before Moscow (and the americans entered the war on top). The small austrian drug-addict thought after the victourious French campaign, he advised, he is the biggest fieldmarshall of all times and messed it up horrendous (winter crisis 41/42). Moscow ruined Barbarossa but it didn't cause the German defeat right away; it turned the war from a Blitzkrieg attempt into a meat grinder which Germany would lose. The Soviets took the initiative from the Germen in Stalingrad, which means now Germany is really on its way to defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 25, 2021 9:42:37 GMT
The main thing with Stalingrad was that it was named after Stalin and losing it would be bad for Stalin's reputation. And more importantly it would cut the Volga and let the Caucasus campaign continue. 1. The military command of the Soviets already knew that Stalingrad would fall quickly and they would be counting the time left on their fingers. It would have been bad for Stalin's reputation, but weren't people already hating him for his draconian policies? 2. Where would they move after Stalingrad? I mean you said Caucasus campaign would continue (I didn't understand this point) Because Stalingrad fell the forces in the Caucasus were in threat of being cut off. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Aug 25, 2021 9:54:22 GMT
The main thing with Stalingrad was that it was named after Stalin and losing it would be bad for Stalin's reputation. And more importantly it would cut the Volga and let the Caucasus campaign continue. 1. The military command of the Soviets already knew that Stalingrad would fall quickly and they would be counting the time left on their fingers. It would have been bad for Stalin's reputation, but weren't people already hating him for his draconian policies? 2. Where would they move after Stalingrad? I mean you said Caucasus campaign would continue (I didn't understand this point) Oil. Germany had to rely on Romania for oil, and the Caucasian region has tons of them. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Aug 25, 2021 10:45:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Aug 25, 2021 11:04:35 GMT
Of course they would. They will probably head to Baku as that's where the oil fields are located. |
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Aug 25, 2021 11:46:39 GMT
Yes, an I really can't understand this. In January 1942 there was no chance anymore for the Nazi to defeat the 'Bolscheweki'. I doubt that this chance ever existed - the german inteligence underestimated the organisatoric, human and industrial potential of the CCCP up to 10 times (multiplicated with the factors' of the supreme race) All non-political generals know this - with Stalingrad one year later, even the last lanzer or grandma was sure that the war is lost. The decive Battle of WW2 was the failiure of Plan Barbarossa before Moscow (and the americans entered the war on top). The small austrian drug-addict thought after the victourious French campaign, he advised, he is the biggest fieldmarshall of all times and messed it up horrendous (winter crisis 41/42). Moscow ruined Barbarossa but it didn't cause the German defeat right away; it turned the war from a Blitzkrieg attempt into a meat grinder which Germany would lose. The Soviets took the initiative from the Germen in Stalingrad, which means now Germany is really on its way to defeat. That's right germans were not 'defeated' at Moscow, but the outcome of WW2 was decided. There was abolutely no chance that germany could win, or even just keep their positions after 1941. The outcome was decided. Every other actions were in attempt to ignore the reality (Hitler: "The enemy is at its end") or to cover the backdraw. The battle for Stalingrad was already germans 'Plan B' ( Blau). It was planned after! the failure of Moscow, before unthinkable! At this time less than 10% of the initial german tanks were operative, Patriotic russian mouses destroyed more than 70% of the romanian armoured equippment. Germans still had no working supply for it's troops. And the germans had absolutely no Idea how potent the CCCP was. CCCP Production 1942: 3000 combat aircraft 4500 tanks 14000 heavy artillery 50000 grenade launchers + up to 15mio soilders reserve The sixth Army was sacrified at Stalingrad to cover the backdraw of the complete group A - to reduce losses. Stalingrad was primary a symbolic battle, the outcome of the whole war, already long clear at least after Moscow |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 25, 2021 13:09:35 GMT
Operation Barbarossa could have never succeeded when Axis was in a race against time.
If Axis managed to knock Britain out of war and establish trade relations with her, then they would have much higher chance of success or atleast peace with territorial gains with Soviet Union.
Hence, Battle of Britain was much more desicive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 25, 2021 13:20:51 GMT
Operation Barbarossa could have never succeeded when Axis was in a race against time. If Axis managed to knock Britain out of war and establish trade relations with her, then they would have much higher chance of success or atleast peace with territorial gains with Soviet Union. Hence, Battle of Britain was much more desicive. It could have if Moscow and/or Stalingrad had fallen. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 25, 2021 14:00:59 GMT
Operation Barbarossa could have never succeeded when Axis was in a race against time. If Axis managed to knock Britain out of war and establish trade relations with her, then they would have much higher chance of success or atleast peace with territorial gains with Soviet Union. Hence, Battle of Britain was much more desicive. It could have if Moscow and/or Stalingrad had fallen. I don't think so. Also stalingrad did fall. |
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Aug 25, 2021 14:14:34 GMT
Operation Barbarossa could have never succeeded when Axis was in a race against time. If Axis managed to knock Britain out of war and establish trade relations with her, then they would have much higher chance of success or atleast peace with territorial gains with Soviet Union. Hence, Battle of Britain was much more desicive. The 'Battle for Britain' was a camouflage for Barbarossa. Every planning for a theoretical invasion was already stopped in 39. The whole war was an anticommunist campaign - all the time from the beginning. The 'Arian-race' (A mixture between caucasian and Indian !!!) wanted russia and eliminate the idea of communissm. For this reason the Nazis got almost ⅓ of voters in germany: Anti-Communism. Britain was never a target, and germany did a few attempts to join forces with britain against the bochewesk thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 25, 2021 14:17:05 GMT
Operation Barbarossa could have never succeeded when Axis was in a race against time. If Axis managed to knock Britain out of war and establish trade relations with her, then they would have much higher chance of success or atleast peace with territorial gains with Soviet Union. Hence, Battle of Britain was much more desicive. The 'Battle for Britain' was a camouflage for Barbarossa. Every planning for a theoretical invasion was already stopped in 39. The whole war was an anticommunist campaign - all the time from the beginning. The 'Arian-race' (A mixture between caucasian and Indian !!!) wanted russia and eliminate the idea of communissm. For this reason the Nazis got almost ⅓ of voters in germany: Anti-Communism. Britain was never a target, and germany did a few attempts to join forces with britain against the bochewesk thread. I am not saying that it should had been an invasion necessarily, it could be a psychological defeat for Britain forcing her to come on negotiations table |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 25, 2021 14:39:26 GMT
It could have if Moscow and/or Stalingrad had fallen. I don't think so. Also stalingrad did fall. Stalingrad didn't fall, only most of it. |
|
