When did Germany lose the war?

I did not claim this,it was that old fool Sutton,who did say this .

 

About Sutton and his ...blahblah:the following is from an unsuspected source ,that can not be suspected of having any sympathy for Bush(sr/jr) :the Anti Defamation League:
the rumours about the alleged Nazi'ties' of the late Prescott Bush are untenable and politically motivated .P.Bush was neither a Nazi,nor a Nazi sympathiser.

 

Oh. I apologize then

 

Although I cannot at this time document such (perhaps Clint or someone else can and will), I recall reading where in 1942 Stalin had put out feelers seeking a truce, which Hitler rebuffed. Again, the Russians suffered grievously in the war notwithstanding emerging victorious. They were able to augment their ranks by drafting men into the army who had been behind German lines as the Soviets pushed the Germans back.

I disagree with you that in 1942 the German could not have adopted a defensive posture along the entire front (pulling back from untenable positions) and forced a truce (were it not for their intractable leader). I certainly believe they could have before Case Blue, and possibly even immediately after it, especially if von Manstein were put in command. He was the master of the “backhanded stroke,” allowing deep penetrations creating a salient which he would then exploit with pincer counterattacks. Certainly they were finished after Kursk.

Again, FDR and Churchill tried desperately to forestall a separate Soviet peace with Germany and delivered as much aid as possible while receiving little in return other than the quid pro quo of the Russians continuing the war and paying for it with an ocean of blood.

Regarding the Western front, I was just speculating what might have happened had Hitler secured a truce with Stalin. That’s a very murky hypothetical question to ponder. With troops freed from the Russian front, an Allied invasion of Europe would have been a very questionable proposition. Eisenhower had been worried enough over Normandy when the Germans had a fraction of their troops in France that they could have had they not been fighting the Soviet Union.

 

The same Sutton was writing the following in the preface of" Wall Street and the rise of Hitler":"This is the third and final volume of a trilogy describing the role of the American corporate socialists (remember what I was writing about specialised institutions),otherwise known as the Wall Street financial elite or the Eastern liberal establishment,in three significant twentieth-century historical events:the 1917 Lenin-Trotzky revolution in Russia,the 1988 (SIC) election of F.Roosevelt in the US and the 1988(RESIC) seizure of power by A.Hitler in Germany.
Each of these events introduced some variant of socialism into a major country-----i.e.Bolshevic Socialism in Russia,New Deal Socialism (remember the specialised institutions) in the US and National Socialism in Germany ."


While the first paragraph is a lot of nonsens,the second one is an exemple of almost unheard dishonesty ,by suggesting that the New Deal is comparable with Bolshevism and Nazism.I think I have the right to write this,because I always have been a staunch opponent of the New Deal.
Now ,an other exemple,and,IMHO,the summum of BS,nonsens,etc:
From "The Introduction"
Unexplored facets of Naziism
2th page:".....it is obvious that the mystical (ha) origins,the neo-pagan historical roots of Naziism,(I know you are waiting for the inevitable) ...the Bavarian ILLUMINATI and the Thule Society are relatively unknown....."
This is followed by a lot of nonsens about the SS searching the Holy Grail (haha:it seems the old fool has looked to much to the film with Harrison)
Then ,there is chapter ten about the ties of Sidney Warburg with Hitler,chapter 11,suggesting that American industrialists and Financiers were Guilty of War Crimes .

 

In 43 and it wasn't a serious attempt any way. USSR demanded Germany to fall back to 22 june 41 line. There wasn't going to be a peace.

In 42 if you make Germans on defensive a lot of land remains in soviet hands. Did you thought of that??

Please, not this silly fanboyism. Manestein was no god. One man doesn't win war. He is in fact most overrated generals of all.

Read some serious writings on kharkov and not fan fiction. Kharkov happened because of numerous factors, most important being weakened red army in that sector. You know and there was a thing called Red Army which existed at that time period too with capabilities of adaptation and innovation, it wasn't a video games AI.

Again read serious history and not dramatized accounts of that history. Kursk was not important, it was nothing compared to the losses Wehrmacht took in 43.

 

I wish I got ONE dollar every time some one mentioned the backhanded stroke of Manstein (of course,without knowing what it means):I could pay my taxes and having still enough for a lot of beer.

 

The Germans lost 54000 men at Citadelle,while the losses for 1943 on the East Front were some 1.6 million .

 

Geez... You guys continue arguing about events in '42 and '43. Those decisions would NOT even be on the table if Hitler hadn't chosen to turn against the Soviets in '41. This was a gross strategic error on his part. Simple fact. Stalin would have been quite happy to continue a truce with the Germans so that his forces could have helped the Japs chop China in half, to be shared equally.

 

Do you have anything to back it up or you just make things up regularly.

USSR was helping china from the beginning against japan. Ever heard of operation zet. Then, again its off topic but c'mon stalin even told chinease communists to cooperate with nationalists agaisnt japan and still people believe that USSR would had worked with Japan against China

Although this crap is new to me.

 

About the Germans adopting a defensive posture in 1942:for a front going from Leningrad to Rostow,the Germans had in june 1942:1069 operational tanks .This was,of course,much to small .
Germany could NOT afford a 2 front war in 1942ne of the two opponents (Soviets/Britain-US) had to be eliminated,and,...in 1942,later would be impossible.

 

Ok, fuser. So, Stalin would have been happy to side with the Chinese to take over Japan, or make a move into Iraq/Iran. Whatever. The key point is that neither Germany nor the Soviet Union would have had to utilize resources fighting each other, resources that could have been more effectively used elsewhere.

 

Elsewhere :hm,where,please ?

 

Defeat England first. Then, work through the Balkans (and a cooperative Turkey) to take over the Middle East?

 

As every one knows,the chances to defeat Britain in the short term/long term,were minus O
And,the take over of the Middle East would be a waste of means .There was nothing usefull in the ME=nothing that the Germans could use .

 

OMG why would china or SU want to take over japan??

Why would SU want to move into Iraq/Iran?? This isn't a strategic video game you know.......

 

Well, I do belive that politically Hitler was a smart man. He had quite a charm to presuade the public and his Non-Military plans to build back Germany after World War One were not that bad at all. Hitler started messing up when he stuck his nose in the treaty of Versailles. Joining Austria was not a bad decision because of the Austrian mind-set but threatening the Polish and Slovakians for their land back was when the war began and when the war was lost.

 

Su did in fact have a big interest in Iran. With British it ejected the German presence there and allowed one of the largest arms of the lend lease supply line to operate through Iran.

 

Sorry Ljad, my previous post was buggered up, that wasnt meant to be you I was quoting. Sorry for any buggerance.