Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> The final assault on Berlin - Why did Germany loose the war?
Matt820
Posted: September 14, 2004 03:21 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 341
Joined: September 12, 2004



The Russians built up fortifications and garrisoned troops on the border of the Axis Empire. The only people (unless the NKVD or Kremlin knew beforehand. They may of been anticipating it anyways) were the the Soviet diplomats in Berlin. The Germans attack, although they had been planning it, the attack was more of a sneak attack. The Germans bombed Sevastopol on the Crimean peninsula and attack key areas along the border.




Information from:"Stalingrad" by Anthony Beevor
PM
Top
dead-cat
Posted: September 14, 2004 07:39 am
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



QUOTE

I fail to see how war with the SU was supposed to break England. The British were quite happy to see Germany's attention slip away from them.  

Hitler used to say something like "the british will to resist is strengthened by the support of the USA and SU. about the USA we cannot do anything at this point. but the SU is within our reach". i'd have to look up the exact quote.
QUOTE

This I disagree with but it would be hard to come up with a simple rebuttal. Those political and military realities were created by the nazis themselves whose leader had by any definition an intensely ideological view of the world. He spoke and wrote abundantly enough about it.  

that is of course, true, but you were saying
QUOTE

The political thoughts of the man were drawing him into eradicating the Soviet Union, because he vomited the idea of Communism, because his racial hierarchy put the Russians at the bottom of mankind and because the vast steppes of Russia contained the space and ressources he desired for the German nation.  

i disagree with the idea that Hitler started the war with the SU because of his sole hatred of comunism.
QUOTE

It's hard to come up with solid evidence for this. By the same standards we could also say that the Napoleon's wars were all preemptive, that the Mongols attack of China was preemptive or that the Zulu war resulted from a British preemptive strike.

ummm...the soviet plan was to attack in sept./oct. because the deployment couldn't be finished earlier. there are several books about this issue and the soviets never tried to really hide that, because according to the doctrine of the CP, any war waged by the SU was a just war, so implicit an agrresive one too.
QUOTE

In my view, the German war against the USSR was not pre-emptive , as it was planned for long time. It was rather simultaneous, or parallel to the Soviet Army build-up, which undoubtedly would have resulted in a Westward attack at a latter date, to \"free the workers and farmers under the Imperialist yoke\". It was only a timing issue that the Germans stroke first.  

the case study was ordered during late 1940 and finished early 1941 (i have to look up the exact dates when i get home).
PMYahoo
Top
dead-cat
Posted: September 15, 2004 05:33 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



2 case studies were ordered.

"Operationsentwurf Ost" by Gen.Maj. Marcks was ordered on july 29 1940 and delivered a week later

"Operationsstudie Ost" by Oberstlt. Loßberg was ordered the same day(?) and delivered Sep. 15 1940.

the 1st draft for the deployment order for Barbarossa (Aufmarschanweisung) was delivered by Halder on feb. 3 1941


on sept.28 1939 Stalin asked for a review of the original war plan against germany by Marshall Shaposhnykow (sp) from 1938, which became obsolete after the division of Poland.
the study was again written by Shaposhnykow and signed by Marshall Timoshenko and was delivered during summer 1940 (the document is not dated).
PMYahoo
Top
enedan
Posted: September 17, 2004 07:20 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Member No.: 346
Joined: September 17, 2004



Maybe one would better ask why Hitler made the obvious mistake to attack SU as late as summer 1941, spending time to repair Mussolini's stupidity and losing precious, if not vital, months of good weather.

As to why attack SU at all, the Lebensraum was not Hitler's ideea, the eastward expansion is an ideea way too old in Germany's ideology. At the time it was a logical choice for Hitler, he practically grew with it in mind.
PMYahooMSN
Top
Iamandi
Posted: September 20, 2004 11:24 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



Maybe one would better ask why Hitler made the obvious mistake to attack SU as late as summer 1941, spending time to repair Mussolini's stupidity and losing precious, if not vital, months of good weather.

.... stupid or not, Mussolini was the most powerful ally in Europe. And do not forget, in this monts, german army have time to more training. Luftwaffe was caught in fights with RAF...

As to why attack SU at all, the Lebensraum was not Hitler's ideea, the eastward expansion is an ideea way too old in Germany's ideology. At the time it was a logical choice for Hitler, he practically grew with it in mind.

.... i have a question - Germany was and he is a powerful country, why did she needs "Lebensraum"? OK, Japan is an arhipelago and she needs a lot of "soil" and resurces, but Germany? No, certainly is not a need of land, but one of more power on the map of the planet.

Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Chandernagore
Posted: September 24, 2004 12:05 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 818
Member No.: 106
Joined: September 22, 2003



QUOTE (Iamandi @ Sep 20 2004, 11:24 AM)
.... i have a question - Germany was and he is a powerful country, why did she needs "Lebensraum"? OK, Japan is an arhipelago and she needs a lot of "soil" and resurces, but Germany?

The answer is simple : they didn't need it. Neither did Japan, look at how they are doing today economically in the same or smaller territory.

Lebensraum was on the "want" list, not the "need" list. As to why it was on the want list we must return to the nature of the political regime.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on September 24, 2004 12:05 am
PM
Top
PanzerKing
Posted: October 06, 2004 12:03 am
Quote Post


Sergent major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 216
Member No.: 29
Joined: July 07, 2003



Well hell, Germany recieved plenty of Lebensraum when they took over Austria, Czechoslavakia, and Poland. If I were Hitler, I would have been satisfied with that!
PMUsers WebsiteMSN
Top
Chandernagore
Posted: October 06, 2004 08:22 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 818
Member No.: 106
Joined: September 22, 2003



QUOTE (PanzerKing @ Oct 6 2004, 12:03 AM)
Well hell, Germany recieved plenty of Lebensraum when they took over Austria, Czechoslavakia, and Poland. If I were Hitler, I would have been satisfied with that!

Well, but you're not ;-)

Short of world domination I don't know what would have satisfied A.H.
At no time was he very close to it yet the distance he travelled is truly amazing.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on October 06, 2004 08:22 am
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: October 06, 2004 12:59 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4355
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (Chandernagore @ Oct 6 2004, 02:22 PM)
Short of world domination I don't know what would have satisfied A.H.

Yet another close resemblence of Hitler to Stalin.
Stalin also wanted to "free" the world's proletariat from the usurping of the capitalists. He said something like "all wars are just wars to achieve this ultimate goal." :lol:

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 06, 2004 01:02 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Chandernagore
Posted: October 06, 2004 04:50 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 818
Member No.: 106
Joined: September 22, 2003



Ah, again the fishy equation Adolf = Stalin.

But even the way you libelled it I have more understanding for Stalin's hypocritical objectives than for the undisguised goals of the nazis, which were purely nationalistic and racial. Which one would you choose to ally again the other ?

Do you think that, in 45, an man like Adolf would have kept his word and left Austria & Yugoslavia outside direct Russian control ?

I think not. The Fuhrer never kept his word like Stalin did with Austria & Yugoslavia. You just faced a snake who wouldn't let go until it swallowed you or until you stomped it into the ground. There was no middle ground, no understanding to be reached with such a man and system. By summer 1941 it was clear to most nations on the planet. The resulting war was much more a total war than WWI. For loosing to the nazis was a ticket to long term slavery or maybe oblivion, depending on where you happened to fit on the nazi species tree (at best you could hope to lick their ass, worst you were "final-solutioned"). A fate that also threatened their allies.
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: October 06, 2004 05:53 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4355
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



Chandy, I won't let myself caught by the trap you set. :lol:

ANYTHING written about A.H., not completely negative and repulsive, automatically draws one of the following labels: "holocaust-denier", "neo-nazi", "apologetic", "revisionist", you name it, even the threat of prosecution.

What I was talking about is Stalin and his world domination goals, similar to Hitler's.
Chandy, by preferring Stalin to Hitler, even by an inch, you imply that he (Stalin) wasn't that bad after all, more like "misunderstood", etc. To me, and many-many others, that's also a "revisionist" point of view, to say the least.

In my eyes, based on the historical facts I am aware of, both Hitler and Stalin - and the regimes they represented - are equally despicable and I am not willing to be apologetic to one or the other.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 06, 2004 05:55 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Chandernagore
Posted: October 06, 2004 10:00 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 818
Member No.: 106
Joined: September 22, 2003



QUOTE
you imply that he (Stalin) wasn't that bad after all,


No. I imply that the alternative was worst and there was no trap. Maybe a theoretical question for you, but a real one for the Allies at the begining of the war. By the time Stalin quietly let the Polish uprising be crushed, it was pretty evident for all in the west, even for the most sceptical, that Stalin was a nice piece of shit himself. That is for those who weren't already convinced by the Winter War, the Baltic states & Bessarabia. The victims of Stalin are legions, but I'm confident that if Hitler had won WWII the Gods of the universe would still cry...
PM
Top
kaminski
Posted: October 06, 2004 11:36 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 222
Joined: February 20, 2004



1. Germany loose the war because, u can fight and win the american, (power economic of america)
2. A.H make many mistake in russia, he dont undstant the signification of strategic
retreat.
3. Many mistake in air war the ME 262 make it funcitonal too late !!!
4.He dismiss the great generals
5. A.H dont undastant the value of logistic
PM
Top
Iamandi
Posted: October 07, 2004 06:22 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004





If you enter, or re-enter here:
www.luft46.com
you may find more, not only the mistakce with ME262. Not all projects, but some in special. Here you may find some about big "hidro-planes" with long range an capability to patrol over Atlantic, to bomb USA or launch commando units in USA, to supply U-Boats and ships (corsairs, pocket -battleships, cruisers, etc).

Iama

PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Chandernagore
Posted: October 07, 2004 07:13 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 818
Member No.: 106
Joined: September 22, 2003



QUOTE (kaminski @ Oct 6 2004, 11:36 PM)
1. Germany loose the war because, u can fight and win the american, (power economic of america)

Unless you're Vietnamese :blink:
PM
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0271 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]