Hitler's Blunders of the Eastern Front

Hitler Blunder

without the racist ideaology the Germans had the Ukranian forces who welcomed the Germans would have risen up and fought along side them along with MANY other non Russian Soviet forces.The German threw away a fighting force of about 500,000 - 1,000,000soldiers who hated the Soviets(STALIN) with a blood passion

 

Good point. Same can go with the Jews. Although, I know that at least 50,000 Russians served with the German 6th Army in and around Stalingrad. By that time, the Germans were taking anybody that could fire a weapon.

 

Given how bad the conditions were in the German POW camps, I have a hard time blaming those Russians for defecting to the German side. Anything had to be better than what they had just left, even combat. A lot of them fought with amazing ferocity, even in the West after D-Day.

 

What were the numbers in the German POW camps? Something like 2 mil. out of 5 mil dead, I believe. But then again, the Russian camps were not much better.

 

The numbers change so often. I have heard up to 6,000,000 Russian POWs were held during the war.

 

I believe that your figure is the correct one, Zhukov. Any other army I know of who had lost that many men taken prisoner, on top of all their other losses, would have collapsed.

 

In each book you open to find some numbers of POW in the eastern front, you can find very different ones. I think it's impossible to get soem definite result.

 

I don't think the Russians ever really tried to count them. And a lot of those listed as missing in what casualty reports there were wound up dying fighting in France or in Russia on the German side.

 

Yeah - and apparently if a soldier was no longer in his regiment after a battle (KIA, POW, MIA, deserted, whatever) the Russians would simply send out a postcard to his family with "MISSING" stamped on it.

 

If the soldier was part of the communist party, he would get dog tags and his family would get something relatively more personal then a "missing" postcard. I could definitely seeing the Russians repaying the men who were dying defending the motherland familiy's like that though.

 

Slightly off topic, but wasn't it Stalin who had people shot and then sent their families the bill for the ceremony?

 

I think the Soviet custom was to send them the bill for the bullet. Quaint.

 

Hmmm, well the same idea anyway. :-?

 

ehh

too many inacuracies to even start talking about.

1. Stalingrad having no strategical importance. Well, if you dont need oil or food or any other supplies, then I guess Stalingrad was not important. Volga river has been one of the most important supply lines in Russia since about 12th century. Shipping grain from Kazakhstan and oil from Kaspian sea isn't good enough? The entire objective of 1942 campaign was to cut Russia from its oil supply in Caucasus. Therefore split in armies, Paulus to cut supply line, and another Army to take Caucasus.

2. Ukrainians greeting Hitler with open arms. I guess you arent very familiar with history of the region. It is true that in some areas of Western Ukraine nationalistic elements collaborated with Germans, but if you read about defense of cities like Odessa or Sebastopol that were given title of "City Hero", you will find out that in example of say Odessa, Stalin had to "ask" not order troops to leave city, because people and troops were prepared to defend it to the last soldier no matter the losses. There were nationalistic elements in Western Ukraine, yes, but those were minorities at best. There was no "mass" movement to collaborate with Nazis.

3. Ah yes, the famous "lets go take over Moscow and win the war" motto. Apparently history doesnt teach much, does it? I mean if such motto worked for Napoleon, it would be understandable. But did it? Ok, lets imagine in 1941, Hitler sends bulk of its army to Moscow. Lets see, Stalingrad fight, Leningrad battle, Berlin battle.. a city with population of over million is easy to take? Read about battle for Berlin? You really think Moscow would surrender much easier? Meanwhile there is an army in Ukraine that you just left alone to recover. Wonder what would they do given freedom of choice? Hmm.. meanwhile your communications and supply lines are over extended, you are engaged in a street by street city battle. Hey, if you spend 15 minutes of thinking, Hitler kinda starting to look like a genius and some of his generals like lunatics.

4. Oh but of course poor Germans just froze to death in Russia. They woulda won, but they just froze. They thought Russia had tropical climate. Have you ever pondered how hard it is to ship fuel, ammo, reinforcements AND supplies needed for cold weather across territory double that of germany with no railroads and thru guerilla infested forrests? No? Then think about it. Yes, Hitler lacked common sense and didnt know it was cold in Russia during winter.

 

Hitler knew it was cold in Russia during the winter. He just figured the campaign in the Soviet Union would be over before then.

 

Hitler, in invading the U.S.S.R., broke the two rules of war:

1. Never wage a war on two fronts
2. Never invade Russia

 

I guess he figured that the Western Allies had been "pacified" enough to allow a campaign in the east which, keep in mind, was supposed to take only six months at most.

The Never invade Russia rule is a very good rule of thumb though. It failed twice before Hitler, why would he succeed? The country is just too big. Only steppe peoples (like the Mongols under Chengis Khan) can conquer Russia, because the typical countryside is their known ally.

 

The US have learned from experience, don't wage an all-out war against a country that you can't conquer. Limited war and skirmishes is more fashionable.
As belligerant as India and Pakistan are to each other, they know better than to wage a total war, or a nuclear exchange against each other. Same goes for US and Russia, or China, for that matter. It's one thing to harrass opposing spy planes and bomb embassies, it's an entirely different matter taking on giants as big as the US or China.

Unfortunately, I think the US is caught in a similar quandry. While it was easily to wage a military campaign against Iraqu, long-term occupation and converting Iraq to a "democratic" state has proved difficult, especially when the majority of the local population hated the US presence, so much so that they were willing to blow themselves up with explosives just to kill a couple of GIs.

 

The actual number of insurgents isn't that great. If they had the numbers you suggest, American casualties would be horrific, instead of being as incredibly light as they have been.

 

thats right
i think iran :bang: would be Bloodier than iraq :kill: