Stalingrad Battle of Death 3 Parts (english )

[masterYo]

napolean had a mild winter,hitler had a severe one

it were only two persons in the world history who did not who that winters are clod in Russia: Hitler and Napoleon.

[5440fight]

If not for Hitler meddling, the Germans might have won the war. Hooray for incompetence! Mind you, for the Russians, it was a choice of being eaten by the wolf, or the bear. Gee, do I want to be shot by the SS, or the NKVD... choices choices...

[ostrof]

If not for Hitler meddling, the Germans might have won the war. Hooray for incompetence! Mind you, for the Russians, it was a choice of being eaten by the wolf, or the bear. Gee, do I want to be shot by the SS, or the NKVD... choices choices...

It was the choice to be or not to be for Russia and russians ... and for your family as well
I regret you are " sold your soul to the internet "...

[boltaction]

It is indeed fortunate that Hitler was incompetent in his estimates and leadership. Had he been a better tactician and more importantly listened to those around him who were, Germany would have completely controlled Europe. He underestimated England's resistance, probably thought there would be an easy victory there, and then when there wasn't he lost interest and began to concentrate on his main objective, which had been the East all along. As well, probably in 1940 he was also concerned about the German population's willingness to absorb casualties. Had he stuck it out and actually invaded England, saving the invasion of Russia for when he had only one front to worry about, it is likely he would have succeeded, particularly if he had used his capital surface ships properly. With England out of the way, there would have been no "offshore" base in Continental Europe from which the remaining Allied powers (ie Canada, US) could have bombed German industry, supplied Malta, launched invasions of North Africa, Italy or France, or supplied the Resistance movements. That would have freed up ALL German power for the war in the East, left their transportation and manufacturing infrastructure intact, and of course left them the oilfields in Africa/Saudi area for the taking.

I remember reading somewhere that at no point after Barbarossa started did the Wehrmacht ever have less than 60% of its forces engaged or involved in the Eastern Front. Flipped around, that means that the remaining 40% was what was in Africa, Italy, France, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. The second front opened by the Western Allies helped keep that 40% from the East, which was really where the main war was fought. One can only imagine how something like the invasion of Normandy would have gone if the Germans had been able to bring more forces to bear in France......... Canadian, British and American troops took a large number of casualties in Italy and France, by our standards, but those numbers dwindle down a lot when one thinks about how many the Russians (and Germans) lost in places like Stalingrad, the battle of Kursk, etc.

Ed

[BigBeaverBoomStix]

The development and deployment of the atomic bomb renders all "what if" theories irrelevant.

Berlin would have been atomized and the germans would have surrendered, just as Japan did.

The same reason no nation will ever invade the US, or any other nuclear power. Peace at last, in theory.

[TJspeller]

It is indeed fortunate that Hitler was incompetent in his estimates and leadership. Had he been a better tactician and more importantly listened to those around him who were, Germany would have completely controlled Europe. He underestimated England's resistance, probably thought there would be an easy victory there, and then when there wasn't he lost interest and began to concentrate on his main objective, which had been the East all along. As well, probably in 1940 he was also concerned about the German population's willingness to absorb casualties. Had he stuck it out and actually invaded England, saving the invasion of Russia for when he had only one front to worry about, it is likely he would have succeeded, particularly if he had used his capital surface ships properly. With England out of the way, there would have been no "offshore" base in Continental Europe from which the remaining Allied powers (ie Canada, US) could have bombed German industry, supplied Malta, launched invasions of North Africa, Italy or France, or supplied the Resistance movements. That would have freed up ALL German power for the war in the East, left their transportation and manufacturing infrastructure intact, and of course left them the oilfields in Africa/Saudi area for the taking.

I remember reading somewhere that at no point after Barbarossa started did the Wehrmacht ever have less than 60% of its forces engaged or involved in the Eastern Front. Flipped around, that means that the remaining 40% was what was in Africa, Italy, France, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. The second front opened by the Western Allies helped keep that 40% from the East, which was really where the main war was fought. One can only imagine how something like the invasion of Normandy would have gone if the Germans had been able to bring more forces to bear in France......... Canadian, British and American troops took a large number of casualties in Italy and France, by our standards, but those numbers dwindle down a lot when one thinks about how many the Russians (and Germans) lost in places like Stalingrad, the battle of Kursk, etc.

Ed

It boggles the mind that Germany was able to take on all these countries, and maybe could have won if they did it right. At least until the US became fully engaged, if it did.

[5440fight]

It was the choice to be or not to be for Russia and russians ... and for your family as well
I regret you are " sold your soul to the internet "...

The Ukrainians were thrilled to see the Germans at first, and Comrade Stalin killed as many Russians as Hitler. Let's not quibble over who was a bigger monster, it's a clear tie. They were both paranoid, murderous pigs. I don't believe the war would have been one without the millions of brave Russians that bore the brunt of the German war machine, however. So don't get all bent out of shape because most thinking people don't agree with Putin's neo-stalinism.

It is indeed fortunate that Hitler was incompetent in his estimates and leadership. Had he been a better tactician and more importantly listened to those around him who were, Germany would have completely controlled Europe. He underestimated England's resistance, probably thought there would be an easy victory there, and then when there wasn't he lost interest and began to concentrate on his main objective, which had been the East all along. As well, probably in 1940 he was also concerned about the German population's willingness to absorb casualties. Had he stuck it out and actually invaded England, saving the invasion of Russia for when he had only one front to worry about, it is likely he would have succeeded, particularly if he had used his capital surface ships properly. With England out of the way, there would have been no "offshore" base in Continental Europe from which the remaining Allied powers (ie Canada, US) could have bombed German industry, supplied Malta, launched invasions of North Africa, Italy or France, or supplied the Resistance movements. That would have freed up ALL German power for the war in the East, left their transportation and manufacturing infrastructure intact, and of course left them the oilfields in Africa/Saudi area for the taking.

I remember reading somewhere that at no point after Barbarossa started did the Wehrmacht ever have less than 60% of its forces engaged or involved in the Eastern Front. Flipped around, that means that the remaining 40% was what was in Africa, Italy, France, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. The second front opened by the Western Allies helped keep that 40% from the East, which was really where the main war was fought. One can only imagine how something like the invasion of Normandy would have gone if the Germans had been able to bring more forces to bear in France......... Canadian, British and American troops took a large number of casualties in Italy and France, by our standards, but those numbers dwindle down a lot when one thinks about how many the Russians (and Germans) lost in places like Stalingrad, the battle of Kursk, etc.

Ed

Exactly where I was going with it.

[ostrof]

[QUOTE=5440fight;8326950]The Ukrainians were thrilled to see the Germans at first, and Comrade Stalin killed as many Russians as Hitler. Let's not quibble over who was a bigger monster, it's a clear tie. They were both paranoid, murderous pigs. I don't believe the war would have been one without the millions of brave Russians that bore the brunt of the German war machine, however. So don't get all bent out of shape because most thinking people don't agree with Putin's neo-stalinism.


"Thrilled ? " OF course , even over " thrilled "!!!!! And to celebrate that they killed thousand Jewish ..
Do not cast, pearls ...

[ostrof]

If you don"t know history then we shouldn't continue ...
"God forgive them for they know not what they do ..."

[chadeech]

The mother of my friend was at St-Petersbour during 900 days when the german was around them........ She survive... I she told us how it was.... VERy TERRIFIC story... I can imagine for Stalingrad !

sorry for putting in some geekness but there is a call of duty that lets you replay it all with amazing accuracy
so much so that it makes the hair stand on your arms and its just a game but if you are into history you can really emerse yourself and
iy was quite the experience.