Stalingrad performance

The two powers would have moved towards conflictual relations. But we don't know how quickly and what type of conflict.

The SU would have had the advantage of being able to enter an alliance with the Western allies. However the SU would have feared the same backstabbing from Germany. So their moves would be cautious.

Even if the SU would no longer be cautious and would start dealing with the Western powers, with the US busy in the Pacific the bickering would have started (you attack first, no you first), probably ending with an agreement to mount a joint offensive when Japan was finished. That would win precious time for Germany. If the Germans would have caught wind of these negotiations, suspected them or kept them in mind as a possibility then their total war economy would have started earlier on. The SU wouldn't have cut its oil supplies to Germany fearing not to provoke it too early.

The US detonation of the nuclear bombs would change the SU's perception of threats. Suddenly waging a war against the German Wehrmacht while the capitalist US arms itself with nukes wouldn't look so appealing. If Germany would have some luck with its nuclear program then the 3 powers and regimes would have entered the Cold War intact.

Great job everybody.
But in my opinion there are quite a few other factors that led to the defeat of Romanian forces in Stalingrad operations.
1. The new structure of the Romanian infantry divisions 6 infantry battalions iso 9 and 2 artillery battalions iso of 3.
2. The low quantity of ammunition received by Romanian units (artillery and infantry ammo) as most of the ammo trains were sent to German 6 Army for the final assault of Stalingrad
3. weather (fog) which canceled the axis air supremacy advantage for the critical stages of the battle.
4. Pervitin a drug based on Benzedrine used by OKW and OKH staff officers to stay awake (including Adolph Hitler) for which the long term use induced a high grade of optimism and a loss of contact to the reality which made impossible the taking of correct and realistic decisions.

I did not know that the officers used it too.
But regarding Hitler, I saw a documentary with a title so funny: "High Hitler"
(instead of "Heil Hitler").
For who does not know, in the United States the expression "to be high" or "he is high" is defining somebody under the effects of drugs, like marijuana, cocaine etc.

It's very "trendy" nowadays to blame the Germans for everything, including own failures .........For an uninitiated reader it would transpire from this thread (and others) that the bad Germans had tons of equipment available in reserve, but they purposely did not give them to their own allies, just to let them bleed unnecessarily........

Some real Romanian veterans of the Eastern Front blamed the Italians on everything at Stalingrad. They were so convincing, that for few years as child and teenager I believed it. I discovered later, to my surprise, that the Romanian troops shared the "honor" as well.
(And no, it was not my grandfather. He just kept saying something about betrayal and treason, but not targeting the Italians. I forgot why my grandfather was very upset against von Manstein - who, on his turn, blamed the Romanians in his memories for things who were not only their fault.)

As you wrote: everybody else to be blamed... on each side.
PS: I learned quite recently that a whole Hungarian army was decimated near Stalingrad in about two weeks. Do I remember correctly?

Yes, you do. It was the Hungarian 2nd Army, at the Don Bend. Same scenario, but different timing.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 18, 2008 06:36 am

Manstein never attacked the Romanian army. He felt that the Romanians had always fought as well as they could under the circumstances. If the German high command expected anything more than that was its own fault. He felt Antonescu was a sincere friend of Germany who understood the strategic situation better than Hitler did.

IMHO: if Antonescu and/or Hitler would have learnt anything from the performances of the Romanian Army at Odessa, the catastrophe at Stalingrad could have been avoided by NOT using Romanian troops...

If you would have read the topic or any serious work on this subject you wouldn't have been to hasty to cast judgements.

Those could have been starship troopers instead of Romanian troops, for the outcome would have been the same. The main problem was the overstretching of available ressources and lack of adequate mobile reserves. Without mobile mechanized reserves to counter the Soviet tank and mechanized corps that had broken through the lines and had bypassed the resistance points, German infantry would have suffered the same fate.

Btw, when working on a PhD supposedly you arrive at the conclusion at the end, after reviewing all available information. You seem to have arrived at the conclusion before actually starting the work.

Now who casts judgements? You didn't understand what I said: there would have been no Stalingrad, as in Stalingrad attack, with huge flanks!
As for my PhD thesis, anyone in their right mind could see the Romanian army was unprepared; this is NOT my thesis, but rather the state of Romanian arma, the relations with the German army, the situation of 1940-1941 etc.
starship troopers
Why not Darth Vader instead of von Paulus? loooool

for "no stalingrad" to happen, you'd need someone at the head of the OKW who was driven by military logic. you don't get there by displaying logic, unless you're happen to be a monarch and inherit that post.
a person who made sense wouldn't have started ww2.

hitler was the one who insisted to hold stalingrad insted pulling back, for prestige reasons. he's not the only one who was driven by prestige rather than military logic, but in his case, the action proved to be extremly costly.

Mannstein showed in feb-march '43 how mobile defence is supposed to be done, but this by taking the risk of ignoring hitlers orders.
as the post-capture bahaviour of von paulus showd, he was not the man to ignore hitler.

during his "sejour" in a soviet camp near Zaporoshe ('45-'49) my father met a soldier who claimed to have been von paulus' cook. he didn't display the "marshall" in very favourable colours; while he and his entourage were feasting on the best, the army was starving.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on February 16, 2009 01:30 pm

Dead-cat, I read about some of those things. I just wanted to underline the fact that Hitler, Antonescu, OKW etc. should have been aware of the - let's say - limited potential of the Romanian, Italian and Hungarian troops. They were NOT to be put in the front line such as they were in '41 or '42. Not alot of common sense was needed - and for being the ones who allegedly started the war, they should have done more to win it!

the criticism directed against romanian troops I read of, was more directed against their equipment (or lack thereof) as against of the troops per se.
since the widespread adoption of the machinegun, wars were not won anymore by elan.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on February 16, 2009 04:55 pm

Definitely. I did not imply anything else, as I'm not Ciano or some other egotistic former leader who just wants to blame someone. I was saying that if they learnt from Odessa, they shouldn't have sent Romanians to Stalingrad.
They = Hitler, Antonescu, OKW, MStM, whatever.
Is there a thread about Odessa?

this one for example.

I forgot...
I'm old and tired. Would there be another one?