 |
|  |
 |
|
datakodin
|
 |
Russia
May 2001 time: 08:16
|
|
Serb, calm down. The USA was - and is - a hostile nation for us for many years. It would be strange to expect they would study our history in a proper way. And it is very strange to explain in CivIII's forum that Americains are bad guys. They are not good and not bad. Just they are not friends of us. Now what?
BTW, Russians are also not familiar with the real history of our neighbours. Can you tell something about Iranians, their culture, their art and their science?
quote: Originally posted by yin26
Oh, and P.S.: Ever wonder why your precious Russia is bothering to learn English in the first place? So you can post on Apolyton? I don't expect you to know one Goddamn word of English, as a matter of fact. I don't expect you to get a good job, either. |
Guess why?
To do business with foreign countries, you have to speak English a little. Certainly, if one wants to be successful, it is better to study the native language of your partner. But at first stage, the English - broken English, actually - would be enough.
And finally. I am Russian but I was bothering to learn German in the first place. Feel better?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
Mussolini got Hitler into all sorts of trouble he didn't need. The Nazis had to divert a bunch of troops to Yugolslavia, Greece and Africa because the Italians were losing, and that hurt them in Russia, where they certainly could have used more reinforcements.
Also, the Russians broke through the auxiliary troops assigned to protect the flanks of the 6th Army (I'm assuming the army # is correct, frankly I didn't remember), who I think were Hungarian, which contributed to the defeat at Stalingrad.
My understanding of the Red Army during WWII (especially early in the war) does jive with siredgar and Sir Ralph, however, I will add that another major contributing factor to the casualties was the initial speed and success of the attack. What I mean is that panzer tactics favored encircling your enemy and forcing him to surrender - get in behind him, disrupt him, cut him off. So, in the early days of Barbarossa, the Nazis were able to do that, and many Russian commanders, seeing they were surrounded and in an untenable situation, surrendered their commands (I should mention that this was a logical response). This generated a huge number of prisoners of war. I believe that most of those POW's are included in the casualty figures because the Nazis "forgot" to feed them. Very few made it home. Later in the war, the Russians began to fight more or less to the last man, even if they were in a terrible situation, because they knew that surrendering wasn't really an option.
-Arrian
p.s. Sir Ralph - yes, each country has its allotment of loud idiots who produce and reinforce cultural stereotypes (both about their own culture and that of others).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001 time: 06:16
|
|
Germany had one and only one true and final objective, and that was Russia. All other wars were "side effects" to achieve this objective.
First, Germany and Russia grabbed both a part of Poland. Both were allied in that war. This made a common border of both, there was no more a buffer state between. It was a crucual point in the war. There were almost no defenders left in Germany, merely a few infantry divisions and not a single tank unit. But France and Britain hesitated to invade and thus sacrificed their ally Poland.
Then, Hitler had to secure Western Europe and could do this safely, with an ally in the back with no fear to be backstabbed. He succeeded with the exception of Britain, but they were in an island and unable for an invasion in the early 40's (after Dunkirk). Norway was captured for 2 reasons: First to secure access to Swedish iron. 2nd to make the North of the British isle and Scapa Flow vulnerable to airstrikes (from Germany and France only the southern part could be reached).
All this was done just to have a clean back when invading Russia.
Yugoslavia, Greece and North Africa were totally insignificant to achieve the main objective, at least for Germany. They were the Duce's playground, he was as insane as Hitler was, without being so dangerous. His Bersaglieri failed in Greece and Northern Africa. Both times the ally Germany had to help out. But I don't dare to say "We saved their asses" though .
All this is not some German propaganda, but stated by a Polish historician who emigrated to Britain and can not be suspected to be pro German. The title of the book is simply "History of World War II", it's awfully large and thick, but I can't remember the name of the author... as far as I remember Prz...(something) Poles tend to have names I can neither keep in mind nor speak them out .
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001 time: 06:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dry
The problem for the Germans was that this was not put on highest priority on Hitler's agenda and so Rommel did never receive all the units/power he needed to achieve that goal. |
Rommel was meant to be a placebo for the Italians. He started the attack by own decision (he was told to wait) and nobody, not even the Wehrmacht high command, did expect, that he makes it so far. But he suffered the same lack of reinforcements and fuel like the other German tank force. The desert and the distance to the home land made all still worse.
EDIT: By the way, did you know, that his famous "Panzer army" had only 5 bataillons of tanks? That is less than a modern tank division has.
Last edited by Sir Ralph on 23-01-2002 at 22:46
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
Based upon what I was taught, the goal was Russia, from the beginning. Sure, the Suez was strategically important and nice to have, but what Hitler really wanted was Russia - probably everything west of the Urals. Keep in mind that Hitler never really wanted to fight Britain and France (although he did enjoy beating the French and forcing them to sign a surrender at the exact same spot as the Germans had surrendered in WWI). He figured, based upon their decision to sell out Czechoslovachia (eek, that's probably spelled wrong) at Munich, that they would betray Poland too. Well, he was only half right. They stood by during the destruction of Poland, but still decided to fight him. The British refusal to surrender frustrated him, and he eventually ran out of patience and hit Russia before the western front was closed, leaving Britain in position to bother him from behind.
The plan was to wipe out (or at least drive out) the "inferior" Slavs and replace them with German settlers. He also had this idea that they would leave the eastern part of Russia as a sort of "frontier" zone, and send future generations of German youth out there to do battle with the "savages", and thus keep the knife blade keen, so-to-speak. Psychotic, huh?
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001 time: 15:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Without wanting to offend Serb, but I have the same opinion. It took place especially in the first 2 years of the German-Soviet war. Tanks and planes still weren't available in a sufficient number, and conscript armies with 3 inf divisions of 10000 soldiers each, with 2 regiments of artillery (as written by Zhukov, for comparison German divisions had 20-25000) were quickly pumped out. |
This is really only a partial picture though- in the run up to the Red Army purges, Soviet tank design and theory were ahead of the field- thanks mainly to the likes of Tukachevsky paying great attention to the theories espoused by Fuller and Liddell Hart. In an era when French military thinking (save for the prescient De Gaulle) was tied to linear defence and ignored the lessons of Cambrai and Amiens, Tukachevsky and others knew the value of the shock tank attack, supported by air and followed up by infantry. Naturally his successors wanted to distance themselves from the tainted thinking associated with the dead men, so inevitably Soviet military thinking, tank design, production and maintenance stagnated in the purges' aftermath.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/...1/article.jhtml
http://military.virtualave.net/
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001 time: 11:16
|
|
quote: [SIZE=1]
The plan was to wipe out (or at least drive out) the "inferior" Slavs and replace them with German settlers. He also had this idea that they would leave the eastern part of Russia as a sort of "frontier" zone, and send future generations of German youth out there to do battle with the "savages", and thus keep the knife blade keen, so-to-speak. Psychotic, huh?
-Arrian |
Yes a little crazy idea, as part of this plan he wanted to flood Moscow and Leningrad. But after Hitler's army atrocities done on occupied territory I don't think that his plan was a joke.
Last edited by Serb on 25-01-2002 at 12:43
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|