The rights and wrongs of WWI & II

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
Sidewinder said:
Catalpa said:
It would have been better for Germany to have held the Western border and thrown everything they had got against Russia.
Now I'm no expert, but isn't that pretty much exactly what they did in WWII? By the time Barbarossa kicked off the western front was pretty much subdued.

Though that was a close-run thing by all accounts. I think it all came down to supplies in the end? i.e. if the German armies had carried sufficient supplies to winter outside Moscow and Stalingrad they might have won: as it was half their army starve and froze to death, then Kursk finished them off. After Kursk the final outcome of the war was not really in doubt.
If TSR had launched the main offensive in east Prussia in 1914 the Germans could have so totally smashed the Czar's armies that he would probably have sued for Peace.

If he didn't the blow to his prestige would have been huge and far worse than 1905.

Revolution would more than likely have followed.

Consider that the Russians were also engaged with the Austrians in southern Poland at that time and you can imagine how difficult such a scenario would have been for them.

Germany did not have to declare War on France and/or invade Belgium. That was a really stupid Strategy! :roll:
 


Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
badinage said:
Sidewinder said:
Though that was a close-run thing by all accounts. I think it all came down to supplies in the end? i.e. if the German armies had carried sufficient supplies to winter outside Moscow and Stalingrad they might have won: as it was half their army starve and froze to death, then Kursk finished them off.
Personally I don't think it was a close-run thing. Some argue that had Stalingrad fallen, the lack of supplies up the Volga would have finished the Russian war effort, but I really don't think the Germans had ever a decent chance of conquering an area as vast as the USSR while treating capurted territories the way they were. The only way Barbarossa could have been successful was if the Nazis convinced the defeated peoples that they had come to liberate them from Stalin and that they were the good guys: by treating the locals as subhumans, failing to feed them, they turned it into a war of survival from the Russian point of view, thereby ensuring that the Russians would fight instead of collapse
Barbarossa was a huge risk but a not beyond the means of the German Army.

IMO the decision to halt after Smolensk and turn south for the Ukraine was the fatal error.

It would have been better to have gone all out for Moscow while the Russians were still reeling.

That aside your points are quite valid.
 

Xipe Totec

Active member
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
122
badinage said:
Sidewinder said:
Though that was a close-run thing by all accounts. I think it all came down to supplies in the end? i.e. if the German armies had carried sufficient supplies to winter outside Moscow and Stalingrad they might have won: as it was half their army starve and froze to death, then Kursk finished them off.
Personally I don't think it was a close-run thing. Some argue that had Stalingrad fallen, the lack of supplies up the Volga would have finished the Russian war effort, but I really don't think the Germans had ever a decent chance of conquering an area as vast as the USSR while treating capurted territories the way they were. The only way Barbarossa could have been successful was if the Nazis convinced the defeated peoples that they had come to liberate them from Stalin and that they were the good guys: by treating the locals as subhumans, failing to feed them, they turned it into a war of survival from the Russian point of view, thereby ensuring that the Russians would fight instead of collapse
Exactly.
The subjugated populations of the USSR hated Stalin, and would side with anyone offering more than annihilation.
Unfortunatley, this concession was too much for the Nazis, whose racialist policies took precedence over all other concerns.

Had the Germans captured Moscow and prevailed in Stalingrad, Stalin would have offered the industrialised and resource-rich areas of the Western Soviet empire in exchange for peace.
The Germans would likely accept, switching their focus from swallowing the territiory, to digesting the population, just as the Japanese did in China.
 

ottovonbismarck

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
3,167
WW1 is certainly a vastly fuzzier picture in terms of choosing right or wrong than WW2. This was a war between imperial powers and their respective satellites (e.g. Bulgaria/Romania). I would have some sympathy for Serbia therein though as it was defending itself from collective punishment by Austria-Hungary (unless the govt had a hand in killing Archduke Franz Ferdinand which it probably didn't). The Serbian civilian populace did not deserve collective punishment for the actions of the Black Hand terrorist group.

WW2 no question whatsoever. Hitler was a genocidal monster who had to be stopped.
When you see Europe now as one effective political block combining different cultures and countries, one thinks of the Austro-Hungarian empire and how it was similar to the EU.

WW2 was a different ball game however.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top