Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not a chance that americans and brits would have defeated Germany without ruussia. Who are you trying to kid. The Germans had the best military machine in the history of the world and they spent most of their forces on the eastern front. I don't think that there is a military historian that would agree with you.
Whether we could have defeated Germany without Russia is debatable, but your slavering worship of all things related to Nazi Germany--well known to this forum--confers a fundamental bias on anything you say about the matter. No related subject can arise without you praising or glorifying the Nazis of that era. Since your perspective on any such question is 100% predictable, it is 100% irrelevant.
Even the "average" German soldier was very committed, loyal and efficient. Look at the efficiency of the average German-to them a Mercedes Benz or BMW is the way to build a car and there is no other way. The SS and other elite units were far above the average, again the analogy of a professional hockey team vs a men's weekend league I think is very accurate.
Was the "average" Soviet, American, British, Greek, French, etc. soldier less loyal and committed? I don't think you can quantify that in any meaningful way to show the commitment and loyalty of the average German soldier to be greater than any other.
The Germans also build Volkswagens which are not exactly the pinnacle of automotive engineering and reliability. The Wehrmacht in WW2 had a lot more VW's than it did Mercedes and BMW's.
Not every SS unit was elite, in fact most of them weren't. People hear "SS" and automatically assume they were the best, they weren't. Regardless, ever hear of the Army Rangers, the Airborne? The Black Watch? Soviet Guards? Every army has elite troops. If memory serves was it not a bunch of under-equipped paratroopers who held Bastogne against the best panzer forces the Germans had?
Quote:
I once read that the American Army prior to WWII was something like the 12th in size? And most were still using weapons designed for the first world war? My Dad was a Marine in WWII and his first weapon was a Springfield model 1918 single shot rifle. Within months they were issued much better weapons but at first they were very far behind even the Japanese.
Yes, the US military was very small when the war broke out, but the US had a highly developed training system that allowed us to produce very high quality green troops. Also, while there were certainly plenty of troops who went to war initially with older equipment, that didn't last very long and was mainly a Marine issue. Besides, it's not as if the Springfield 1918 was a bad gun, it was actually the standard issue sniper rifle throughout the war owing to its range, relaibiltiy and power. The standard infantry weapon for the German army throughout the war was the Kar 98k, a single shot rifle with a very limited magazine. Only in video games does the entire German army come charging with Sturmgewehr's blazing.
There are multiple accounts of German forces mistaking a single American platoon for an entire company owing to the volume of fire that each soldier could put down. Basically, soldier for soldier, the Americans threw more lead than anyone.
Quote:
Wasn't that what the Germans were going for by invading the Soviet Union? They knew better than anyone what their needs were.
Well, they were going to defeat the Soviets in order to get their "Lebensraum", not necessarily secure resources. It wasn't as if their resources were so limited that they needed to go to war in order to secure them, they really only needed the resources because they went to war. One can make the argument that the Japanese had no choice but to go to war over resources, the Germans were in no such position.
Well, they were going to defeat the Soviets in order to get their "Lebensraum", not necessarily secure resources. It wasn't as if their resources were so limited that they needed to go to war in order to secure them, they really only needed the resources because they went to war. One can make the argument that the Japanese had no choice but to go to war over resources, the Germans were in no such position.
While I agree that Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union was driven by ideology, obtaining natural resources was a key factor as well. During the discussions about whether or not Germany should invade the Soviet Union, some in Hitler’s inner circle argued the economic necessity of doing so. Reich Minister of Economics, Walther Funk, stated that as long as England was in the war and her naval blockade in place, the only thing allowing Germany to continue her economic domination of Europe was the food and raw material being sent from Russia. Because it was doubtful that such shipments would continue indefinitely and would in fact have to increase far beyond their current levels, taking them, Funk argued, was the only way to insure Germany could continue the war.
This was completely in line with Hitler’s own thoughts. Hitler envisioned that Russia would become Germany’s “kornkammer†or granary. Seizing the abundant natural resources of the Soviet Union would allow Germany to substantially increase its’ industrial capacity, thus allowing it to pursue a war of attrition with Britain and also the United States should it end up joining the war. As Hitler put it “In order to prevail in the fight for survival with America, Europe requires the wheat, meat, lumber, coal, iron, and oil of Russiaâ€. When the debate began in July 1941 over continuing the push toward Moscow or driving south to capture Kiev and the Ukraine, economic considerations came into play. The generals of the OKH and OKW thought capturing Moscow would provide the best chance of knocking Russia out of the war. Hitler disagreed. To his mind, taking the Ukraine, the Donets Basin, and the Caucasus would both allow Germany to exploit the grain, coal, and oil of the respective regions and prevent the Soviet Union from accessing them, making her defeat all the more likely. When General Guderian met with Hitler on August 23, 1941 to try one last time to persuade the Fuhrer to the OKH/OKW line of thinking, Hitler used economics to counter Guderian’s argument. Hitler told Guderian “My generals know nothing about the economic aspects of war…modern warfare is all economic warfare and the demands of economic warfare must be given priorityâ€.
Consider to that prior to the invasion, the majority of the grain shipments from the Soviet Union were being used to feed Germany’s military. Fully one third of the oil powering the German war machine was courtesy of the Soviet Union. During 1940 alone, Russia sent Germany half a million tons of phosphates, almost a million tons of various grades of iron ore, and 100,000 tons of both chromium and cotton. The Russians also sent the Germans rare ores and rubber from the Far East. A new economic pact signed by Germany and the Soviet Union on January 10, 1941 called for grain shipments to Germany to increase to 2.5 million metric tons. The Russians also agreed to send Germany 6,000 tons of copper, 1,500 tons of nickel and 500 tons each of tungsten and molybdenum, all of which were crucial to German war production.
So yes, Hitler did in fact invade the Soviet Union in hopes of bringing about the fulfillment of a personal, lifelong ideological dream. But equally if not even more important to him was securing a steady stream of resources that could not be interrupted or stopped by the British and Americans, thereby preventing the economic strangulation that doomed Germany to defeat in World War I.
Even the "average" German soldier was very committed, loyal and efficient. Look at the efficiency of the average German-to them a Mercedes Benz or BMW is the way to build a car and there is no other way.
There was at least one other force that trained their troops to an even greater extent than the Germans, armed them with what are arguably the best weapon systems in the war and exercised an even greater degree of fire control and combined arms integration; the United States. Early in the conflict, the Germans had the edge since many of their troops were veterans and they were always on the defensive against the US, but as the American troops gained experience they were easily the equal of the German soldiers and their equipment and integrated fire support gave them an immense edge.
Blah. The U.S. troopes never fought the eastern front German troops. Many of the troops that americans fought were teenagers. The 12th SS division was comprised of Hitler youth.
Whether we could have defeated Germany without Russia is debatable, but your slavering worship of all things related to Nazi Germany--well known to this forum--confers a fundamental bias on anything you say about the matter. No related subject can arise without you praising or glorifying the Nazis of that era. Since your perspective on any such question is 100% predictable, it is 100% irrelevant.
I am not a Nazi, have never been one, never handed out Nazi material or went to pro Nazi demonstration. I am a self learned objective historian.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
