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



Pages: (9) « First ... 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Was the Soviet Union beatable?
Alexandru H.
Posted: May 31, 2005 11:14 am
Quote Post


Sergent major
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 216
Member No.: 57
Joined: July 23, 2003



Grisby's War in the Pacific

What murdered his chances was the ineffective production rates of Germany. Maybe for the first time in history an eastern european country beat Germany at its game: economics.
PMUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: June 01, 2005 07:25 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



Several off-topic posts were deleted.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Tavi
  Posted: May 26, 2006 07:21 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 924
Joined: May 23, 2006



(off topic)
Hello guys, congratulations for the great site, keep up the good work.
(on topic)
In my opinion the Soviet Union was beatable.
If Hitler had the plan to send troops through Finland and attacked from there on the direction Leningrad-Moscow, i think he could cut SU in two by going further south.
Combined with an offensive from the west he could trap almost the whole soviet army.

Only those 40 siberian divisions left from Stalin to guard the manchurian frontier from the japanese will be left.

What do you say?
PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 26, 2006 09:26 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (dragos @ Dec 16 2004, 08:00 PM)
Maybe there was a belief that they could undermine the Soviet political authority and then the entire country would collapse, like in the First World War.

No, in WWI Russia already had a strong (at least ideologically) movement that opposed the Czar and its involvement in the War, while in WWII most if not all of Stalin's opponents were already dead and the germans didnt even try to portray their war as an Operation Russian Freedom.
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 26, 2006 09:28 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Florin @ Dec 17 2004, 08:02 PM)
I am sure that the energy wasted at Stalingrad could turn the tide in Caucasus, if used there.

And with that Germany could get oil resources bigger than the Romanian ones, and much more important, right near frontline, and not thousands of kilometers away, like from Romania!

That oil would need refineries, and the closest refineries were in Romania I think.
PM
Top
Chutzpah
Posted: June 02, 2006 11:45 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 33
Member No.: 922
Joined: May 22, 2006



Plus the Caucasus drive never got anywhere, really. Spectacular but undermanned, underfunded, undersupplied. Ended in uber failure.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Helmut Von Moltke
Posted: August 27, 2006 11:47 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Member No.: 1029
Joined: August 27, 2006



Germany could have won the war if Heeresgruppe Mitte drove straight along the Moscow highway in the first few weeks of the war directly to Moscow and captured it. Then there would be time for Guderian and Bock's Panzers to turn on Leningrad and Stalingrad and Rostov. However Hitler was stupid and splattered the Panzer divisions all over the place right after the first 2 weeks when Heeresgruppe Mitte was already halfway to Moscow and completed the Minsk and Smolensk encirclments.

K
PMEmail Poster
Top
Der Maresal
Posted: August 28, 2006 11:46 pm
Quote Post


Sublocotenent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 422
Member No.: 21
Joined: June 24, 2003



The way I see it, Germany was strong enough to beat any country, including the USSR. But not all at the same time -

They taught that if they dont attack first, they will all jump on them..
Which ended up happening anyways...
Which brings us to my theory: WW2 whould have occured no matter who attacked first.

Hitler can only be blaimed for loosing the war. That's ALL he can be blaimed for -
not for trying or ""starting"" it.
There are those who tried, won.. and as winners never had to answer questions

:ph34r:
PMMSN
Top
MMM
Posted: June 17, 2009 12:01 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



There's a really interesting book called "Hitler Options", by a British professor, Kenneth Macksey. In it, there are a number of theories of "counter-factual history"; one of them is really interesting and believable: all 4 Panzer-Gruppen were concentrated in august in an iron fist which stroke in the center sector of the front, then drove north to Vladimir. All that in the back of the remaining Russian frontline, supplied only by Luftwaffe. Seems so daring, but also possible...
Of course, the whole "story" is longer than 30 pages and with many details.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dragos
Posted: June 17, 2009 01:05 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



An army this size can never be supplied by air alone. At Stalingrad the 6th Army required 500 tons of supplies daily while Luftwaffe could deliver an average of 117 tons a day. And four panzer armies would require a lot more than the 6th Army.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
MMM
Posted: June 17, 2009 03:23 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



But also the Luftwaffe of summer 1941 was stronger than 1942/43. Also, the author assumes that only the mobile parts of the armoured divisions would have participated; plus, the supplies would be just fuel and ammo, less food :)
However, as I said, it is counter-factual history. Nothing could have stopped the rest of the Red Army to mount a counter-attack in the "tankless" sectors of the front.
I am also unsure about Moscow's importance as a knot of communications, other than railways... After all, let's remember how many factories were "translated" eastward with success!
I'll get back with more details of the book if you think necessary.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
cnflyboy2000
Posted: June 19, 2009 05:13 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 371
Member No.: 221
Joined: February 18, 2004



QUOTE (MMM @ June 17, 2009 08:23 pm)
But also the Luftwaffe of summer 1941 was stronger than 1942/43. Also, the author assumes that only the mobile parts of the armoured divisions would have participated; plus, the supplies would be just fuel and ammo, less food :)
However, as I said, it is counter-factual history. Nothing could have stopped the rest of the Red Army to mount a counter-attack in the "tankless" sectors of the front.
I am also unsure about Moscow's importance as a knot of communications, other than railways... After all, let's remember how many factories were "translated" eastward with success!
I'll get back with more details of the book if you think necessary.

Well, few things are more compelling than counterfactual history, imo! That book sounds interesting indeed! (I found it on Google, np).

Another book I love in that genre: What If? (Robert Crowley, ed. Putnam, 1999) has the great military historian Robert Keegan outlining "How Hitler Could Have Won the War; The Drive for the Middle East, 1941"

Keegan gives "what if" Hitler had, in summer 1941 chosen to make his major attack into the mideast instead of Russia! He says capture of the oil fields would have meant victory in the long run for a Reich astride the central route to British India and Russia's southern provinces.

(btw, The Brits knew this of course, and so acted to depose the Shah who had been leaning toward the germans. The outcome of THAT history we see still being played out this week!!!)

But who knows? IMO the Germans would have still been overstretched, and Stalin would not have sat still for long.
PMYahoo
Top
MMM
Posted: June 20, 2009 06:28 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Oh, I've read that book! Quite nice, indeed - and true words you've spoken, Master Yoda: Stalin would have won ww2 anyway, especially with Anglo-American help! The thing (Suvorov wrote it and I partly agree) is that not all the objectives were reached, also due to Germany's first strike!
One thing which I do NOT understand in Suvorov's theory is like that:
Fact 1: There were two very powerful SU armies at the border of Romania, in offfensive didpositive
Fact 2: Romania crossed that border 11 days after the beginning of the conflict
Fact 3: The Soviets could have blown the German-Romanian attack dispositive to pieces by crossing themselves the Pruth river (as Suvorov implies they were preparing for July 6-th)
Question: Why didn't they invade Romania????? It would have been enough to destroy the oil fields for Hitler's war machine to stop!
I quote from this site:
QUOTE
Probably a powerful offensive from the first day on the front in Moldavia would have caused serious problems to the Soviet Southwestern Front, which put up a powerful resistance to von Rundstedt's troops.
http://www.worldwar2.ro/operatii/?article=4
Imagine what would have happened in the opposite situation, with the Soviet Army overruning the 11-th German army and the 3-rd and 4-th Romanian...
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: June 20, 2009 08:25 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4336
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (MMM @ June 20, 2009 08:28 am)
Imagine what would have happened in the opposite situation, with the Soviet Army overruning the 11-th German army and the 3-rd and 4-th Romanian...

Not likely to have happened. The 12th and 9th Armies were in danger of being surrounded inside Bessarabia and their chances of reaching the Ploiesti oilfields were null. The Red Army in 1941 was a far cry from that of 1944 in terms of experience, command abilities, equipment etc.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: June 20, 2009 03:36 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE
were null

How so? That was the initial plan! And I don't think they would have been surrounded! Maybe outflanked a little, from north - but it would have been enough just to destroy the oilfields like in wwI, and eventually to maintain a frontline in the vicinity for as long as necessary to hamper repairing, producing, transporting etc.
True fact that Red Army in 1941 wasn't that good, but the numeric superiority in ALL fields (men, tanks, planes, guns, ships, whatever) must have compensated somehow - as it eventually happened from 1942 onwards...
But that could be another topic :)
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (9) « First ... 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0981 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]