Wich was the worst nation in the war?

[parsifal]

well yes, in those terms it would have been a different outcome, but the argument is non-sequita, because without the living space creed, i dont think the war would have occurred in the first place

[Njaco]

True. I have that human condition called "What if?". But you are right.

[parsifal]

I'll try and put the question this way...how would the Americans react if all of a sudden the Canadians said they wanted Kansas, but they will be real nice to you if you do? Do you think the Ukrainians, or the byelorussians are any less attached to their real estate. Sure they hated Stalin, and the Soviets, but at least Stalin had let some of them stay there, whilst I am no friend of the communists, I doubt that the Nazis would have behaved better, even when they actually try to be nice

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think what some people are failing to realize that just because Moscow was taken does not mean the Russians would have been defeated.

Russia is a vast country and had more resources in manpower than the Germans had. The Russians would have simply packed up their government and their factories (which they did do at times) and would have moved farther east.

I too beleive that the Germans could have defeated the Russians however. Would it have been easy as some people like to believe? Hell no...

Would it have been quick? Hell no, it would have lasted for years and years.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Would it have been quick? Hell no, it would have lasted for years and years.

Years that the Germans didn't have. They were prepared for a short kind of war when they started in 1939. It turned out to be different and the Germans couldn't last that long. I don't believe they would have had the resources to go on for many years more, while I do believe the Russians could.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I pretty much agree with you. I think some people underestimate the Russians. They were not the best army but there were a lot of them and the vast amount of land was on there side.

[Njaco]

I've always had a gut feeling that no matter if Moskow or Stalingrad or any other piece of the country was taken, it was just too vast. Like Adler said, it would have lasted years.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I pretty much agree with you. I think some people underestimate the Russians. They were not the best army but there were a lot of them and the vast amount of land was on there side.

Exactly and the Russian leaders were pretty much willing to sacrifice lives as much as needed. It's hard to fight that.

I think the admiration many have for the German army comes from the fact that given the size of the country and the resources they had, they still could fight that long against the rest of the world. No one would have won in that situation and few would have lasted as long as the Germans did. But i think whatever way you look at it, the Germans could never win in the end. Even if the Germans would have "won" like Soren claims, it would only have been a temporarily one. It would have cost them a lot to keep the conquered country under control and with the war going on in the west and the US entering the war, they still would have run out of breath in the end.

[parsifal]

When you look at all the parts of the equation, the weather, the limited manpower of the wehrmacht, the vast amounts of manpower for the Russians, the attrocious performance of the German leadership, the distances, the weather, the inate fighting abilities of the Russians, and their ability to put up with intense hardship, the limits on the logistical network that the Germans could put into the theatre, the poor road network, the increasingly better Soviet training and technique etc etc, it is hard for me to accept that the Germans had any chance of winning the war. I believe that the Germans may well have been able to take Moscow, but this would have meant a quid pro quo somewhere else, such as the Russians not losing 667000 men in Kiev....The late capture of Moscow would in the finish have probably been a major disaster for the Germans, dwarfing the losses at Stalingrad. The Germans were concentrating three armies for the capture of that city, not one, and when you read the estimates (made by Gehlen) of the reserves the Russians had behind the city (albeit, many incompletely equipped), and the help that would have been rushed to the Soviets by the allies if Moscow had fallen, the full magnitude of the difficulties faced starts to hit home

My stepfather was a machinegunner at Stalingrad. He was shot by a Russian sniper in the arm, using a dum dum bullet. He was saved by a Ukrainian Hiwi, who picked up the MG 42 and proceeded to kill scores of his own countrymen . After he was done, the Hiwi dropped the gun, and just walked off, never to be seen again. Max (my stepfather), if he heard what Soren has to say on this subject would want to publicly flog him. In the opinion of my stepfather, the Russians are one of the most malaigned armies in history. He thinks they are thoroughly dangerous and professional, and some of the best close assault troops around. He is extremely critical of the German leadership.

I dont agree with everything my stepfather has told me, but his exeriences and observations should not be dismissed.

I believe that the Germans put in a very good performance in Russia, and that any other army would not have been able to endure what they endured. But I also can see no real evidence to support this notion that the Germans could have defeated the Russians in any true sense of the word

[kool kitty89]

Germans would be gaining the Russian resources as they advanced as well though.

[parsifal]

Not really, the Russians were carrying out a comphrehensive scorched earth policy as they retreated, right from the beiginning. Just as an example, when the Caucasian oilfields were captured, in 1942, a German engineering assessment estimated that it would take more than two years of intensive effort, occupying more than half the daily train movements available to Army Group South at the time, to return the oilfields to a very minimal level of production. And this sort of systematic destruction was occurring everywhere. Moreover, whatever they could remove, the Russians were relocating plant and material to the Urals and beyond, and in record time

[Soren]

"Aryan Supremacy" c*ap

What ??!

So let me get you straight here Parsifal, you just called me a Racist & a Nazi ??

_____________________________

Some people seem unable to understand that with the caucasus oil fields captured the German war machine would suddenly have all the fuel & oil it needed, And on top of this with Stalingrad captured allot of the logistical problems would've been solved.

Sure the Russians could move their industry back into Siberia, but without the caucasus oil fields and against a now well fueled German army the Soviets were doomed to lose, and Stalin knew this.

Note that the Soviets were able to stall German offensives in huge Urban areas such as Stalingrad & Leningrad, however out in the open the Soviets were at a big disadvantage and were massacred every single time. Stalin knew this and hence his peace settlement plans if Stalingrad fell. The landscape from Stalingrad further up was greatly in favour of the Germans.

In short Stalin knew that if Stalingrad fell the Germans would've secured themselves a very strong foothold in Russia and that the capture of the caucasus region was then inevitable. And with the capture of the caucasus region the German war machine would suddenly be fueled to rumble across the rest of the USSR.

[kool kitty89]

What about the Scorched earth policy?

Inless they could have advanced rapidly enough to capture the resources before they could be removed/destroyed/rendered (at least temporarily) inoperable.
(another thing to think about is how rapid the advance if Germany had gone straight for Russia instad of starting the BoB, in addition to delaying continued action of Brits and the US as earlier mentioned not to mention the Japan issue; while at the ame time getting their war industry ramped up to full)


But another thing I meant was, not just gaining resourses, but the Soviets loosing resourses and increasingly weakening while moving and reconstructin their base. (both military and economic)

[Soren]

The scorched earth policy wouldn't have worked in the caucasus region (Which is most effective in destroying food resources from profitable farmland) as the Germans were fully prepared to put up new refineries in the area and would quickly and easily be able to work with their newly gained resources. Preperations for quickly putting up new oil refineries had already been done long before the assault on the region.

[Soren]

But another thing I meant was, not just gaining resourses, but the Soviets loosing resourses and increasingly weakening while moving and reconstructin their base. (both military and economic)

Exactly KK, the Germans would while gaining new resources also be taking away resources from the Soviets, and a huge amount at that, which is the reason behind the desperate defensive of the region.

We can thank god that Hitler messed it all up cause like many of his generals mentioned; Stalingrad & the Caucasus were but a lenght of hair away from being captured when Hitler screwed it all up. Hitler's failure to send his men winterclothes during the battle for Stalingrad is what cost them the war in their eyes.