Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
War Lost?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by youngjerry (U7266788) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
Assuming the Sixth Army under Paulus had not been stopped at Stalingrad and Hitler went on to conquer the Soviet Union., What then for the Nazis?
Would this have meant WW2 would have been lost to America and the Allies? -
Message 2
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
The only way to hold an empire that size is to get the locals on your side. Eg the Brits in India. Hitler's policy towards 'inferior' peoples would have meant a huge occupation force, spread very thinly, and constantly under pressure.
US manufacturing power was the ultimate factor in willing the war, and that would still have came out on top in the end, I think. It would have taken longer, and been maybe bloodier, but I could not see one country beating the entire world. -
Message 3
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
the sixth army winning at stalingrad still didnt mean the defeat of russia - there was still about 2000 miles of the eastern front to pacify
the red army was still capable of winning
if the germans HAD won D-Day wouldnt have happened - we have discussed this recently
st -
Message 4
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 26th July 2010
Pinning a "what if" scenario on the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad is new stretch. They were at the extreme end of a strained supply line, flanked by poorly led and equipped allies. What's more, the Soviets knew Stalingrad was in the Germans' plans and emptied the town of anything militarily important which they could move - edibles and rolling stock, particularly.
No; 6A at Stalingrad was a textbook case of leading with your chin. There was no way the Germans could have won there. -
Message 5
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 26th July 2010
Another factor in the German loss at Stalingrad was of course 'Feld Marschall Adolf Hitler, Der Fuhrer".
He did not give Von Paulus any alternative. I believe Paulus wanted to make a strategic withdrawal so as not to expose the 6th Army, before Stalingrad but was overruled by Hitler. Even after the encirclement, Hitler made a lot of promises to Paulus.
Hitler sent Von Manstein to rescue Von Paulus; however Manstaein got nowhere. He had promised a lot of supplies by air and Von Paulus got a tiny fraction of them.
In fact Hitler left about 500,000 German officers and men completely in the lurch.
Tas -
Message 6
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 27th July 2010
Marshal Paulus was never "Von Paulus". He was not a member of the aristocratic "Junker" class, but the son of a school teacher. This probably was one of the factors that gave him Hitler's favor, as well as his reluctance to challenge authority and his skills as a staff officer. Paulus was no fool, but he had his limitations as an army commander, and his lack of moral courage would be disastrous for the 6th army. When his staff insisted that he should ignore Hitler's order and order a breakout anyway (he would by no means have been the only general to do so), Paulus refused.
Hitler's decision to hold Stalingrad was heavily influenced by earlier experience that seemed to indicate that German units encircled by the Red Army could be supplied through the air, and hold out until the siege was broken. However, the Demyansk pocket had held a much smaller number of troops and had been easier to supply through the air. Due to Hitler's general neglect of logistics, the Luftwaffe's transport fleet was far too small and too antiquated to supply a complete army, and the numbers had to be complemented by using bombers, many of them unsuitable for the task. The Soviets also understood that if they managed to capture the airfields in the Stalingrad pocket or keep them under artillery fire, this would make the operation of the airlift impossible.
It would probably not have made that much difference if the 6th Army had managed to escape from encirclement: The German forces were exhausted everywhere, while the Soviets showed every sign of being able to remain on the offensive. Arguably the outcome was not even the worst that could have happened for the German Army: Soviet losses in the battle for Stalingrad where extremely heavy, and the sacrifice of the 6th Army did help Von Manstein to stabilize Army Group South, which might have been completely destroyed. -
Message 7
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 31st July 2010
can u imagine the sheer depression if a british army of 500000 was destroyed in the field in ww2
how would we have coped with that
singapore was bad enough - tobruk wasnt good - how about that 3 or 4 times - how did the german people still keep on fighting
st -
Message 8
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
stalti,
can u imagine the sheer depression if a british army of 500000 was destroyed in the field in ww2
how would we have coped with that
singapore was bad enough - tobruk wasnt good - how about that 3 or 4 times - how did the german people still keep on fighting Ìý
And to think that trolls and other idiots say that Dunkirk was really a defeat.
-
Message 9
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
And to think that trolls and other idiots say that Dunkirk was really a defeat.
Ìý
Go on then, I'll bite. I don't think of myself as a troll (I'll let the rest of you judge on "idiot"), but the Allies were ejected from Belgium and lost more men, equipment and ships than the Germans. This ground had to be recaptured 4 years later with yet more loss of Allied life.
It was a successful withdrawal but I struggle to think of other examples where historians would call such an action a victory. Perhaps John Moore's retreat to Corunna in 1808?
The French repeatedly, successfully withdrew from Prussian attempts to encircle and destroy them in 1870, yet they're universally ascribed as Prussian victories. However, I'll give the last word on Dunkirk to Churchill:
"We must be very careful not to assign to thsi deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations." -
Message 10
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
Nowhere near the beginning of the end, but definitely the end of the beginning of the beginning?
Not a victory, but the successful mitigation of a disaster? -
Message 11
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
hi whitecamry
stalti,
can u imagine the sheer depression if a british army of 500000 was destroyed in the field in ww2
how would we have coped with that
singapore was bad enough - tobruk wasnt good - how about that 3 or 4 times - how did the german people still keep on fighting
Quoted from this message
And to think that trolls and other idiots say that Dunkirk was really a defeat.
Ìý
hope that it was meant as i have taken it - as irony
we were destroyed in the field and smashed in the air - luckily we managed to turn it into a victory
how about if we hadnt got those lads off - a hostagebunch of 300000 people - it would have been a bit queasy
even our defeats were manageable lol
st -
Message 12
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 3rd August 2010
we were destroyed in the field and smashed in the air - luckily we managed to turn it into a victory Ìý
Indeed. Churchill points out that the air battle was the only part which showed signs of victory, but the overall strategic situation led to greater RAF losses than Luftwaffe losses.
Promoting Dunkirk as a victory was important for civilian morale after a disasterous campaign (along with that in Norway).
how about if we hadnt got those lads off - a hostagebunch of 300000 people - it would have been a bit queasy
even our defeats were manageableÌý
I wonder whether the UK might have been forced to negotiate for peace if the 200,000 British soldiers (over a third of evacuees were foreign) had been captured instead of rescued. -
Message 13
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Tuesday, 3rd August 2010
Dunno that Churchill was the 'negotiating' type.
I think he would have sat behind the channel, and put his faith in the RAF and RN to prevent the Germans coming in contact with what little was left of the Army, and see how long he could hang on.
The losses of trained men could have been more serious for long term operations, in Egypt, etc, but eventually Hitler was bound to pick on somebody too big for him, and get a black eye. -
Message 14
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 4th August 2010
hi giraffe
nice post and i agree about churchill
even without the bef in german hands - it was never likely the germans could have invaded
russia was always the real war
but as u say - the desert, italy etc was going to be a lot harder
st -
Message 15
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 4th August 2010
that of course should read even with the bef in german hands
-
Message 16
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 4th August 2010
Dunno that Churchill was the 'negotiating' type.Ìý
Me neither, but I wonder if in the aftermath of disaster he might have been forced into it by colleagues, king and country. -
Message 17
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 6th August 2010
If Paulus had not been stopped at Stalingrad, Hitler's forces would've been stopped somewhere else. As Napoleon found out, you can't conquer Russia by just capturing Moscow. The attempt to conquer the Soviets was always doomed to failure, so this discussion is very, very hypothetical....
-
Message 18
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 7th August 2010
shivfan
dont agree fully - i always think that if hitler had taken moscow - if it had been his main objective - he would have won in russia
it was the centre of government and communications and their best troops - the siberians were there
take the capital and the rest falls apart
st -
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 7th August 2010
Re: Message 18.
Stalteriisok,
and the oil supply via Stalingrad...?
Kind regards from your friend,
Paul. -
Message 20
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 7th August 2010
Addendum to message 19.
Stalti,
I many times asked myself: and what if they had bypassed Stalingrad and "secured" Stalingrad on their side?
I see that the same question came up on Axisforum.
As mentioned in the title site it seems to be an apolitical forum. I consulted it many times for all kind of questions about WWII and up to now I never met some "rightist..."...and it is highly professional as about one Frenchman I knew on these boards, who was an expert on French tank warfare...
The question from the American David Clarke...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 21
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Saturday, 7th August 2010
I'm not sure taking Moscow would have been enough.
Wars are usually 'won' when one side realizes it is beaten, and surrenders / negotiates / etc. Stalin had no regard for the welfare of his people, so, like Hitler in 1945, he would probably have 'fought to the last drop of everyone else's blood'. They were already moving factories, etc, to the Urals, so I think they would have fought on, regardless of how badly things looked. The Russians had room to retreat, re-group, and re-organise, with millions of potential soldiers in Siberia still to come into play.
And of course 'General Winter' was waiting to save them, as he always did - the part he played, they should have made him a Marshall, and a Hero of the Soviet Union! -
Message 22
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 10th August 2010
I many times asked myself: and what if they had bypassed Stalingrad and "secured" Stalingrad on their side?Ìý To bypass Stalingrad, Paulus would have to cross Volga under fire, which Wehrmacht in general, and 6th army in particular, was ill equipped for. In fact, Wehrmacht's rapid advance in the first months of the war was possible largely due to practically no river crossings along Smolensk corridor toward Moscow (of course, in some cases, it was as simple as using bridges left perfectly intact).
-
Message 23
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 11th August 2010
Re: Message 22.
Suvorovetz,
thank you very much for your reply. You probably will be right... Did yesterday some one and a half hour research, mainly in wargames sites. Will comment on them tomorrow. Already midnight near Bruges Belgium...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 24
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 12th August 2010
Suvorovetz,thank you very much for your reply. You probably will be right... Did yesterday some one and a half hour research, mainly in wargames sitesÌý Cheers, Paul. To me, maps tell the story better than fiction writers more often than not, you know.
-
Message 25
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Napoleon took Moscow, and it didn't help him....
-
Message 26
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 16th August 2010
When Boney took Moscow there was no rail or telecommunications network for him to seize and cut off northern Russia from southern.
-
Message 27
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Not to mention, neither him, nor Alexander had to worry about oil supplies. As for horses, there was plenty of grass everywhere - at least until the end of October.
-
Message 28
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Re: Message 22. (Addendum to 23 and 24).
Suvorovetz,
did a lot of research on the net for my thesis, but most war games don't consider the securing of Stalingrad and the go for the oilfields of Baku or at least barring the oilfields to the Soviets.
I only found this:
See in window 5 message of 2 Aug. 2005 16h00 my thesis defended by Bronsky.
Also:
To give a survey of Fall Blue for the readers:
Suvorovetz as an aside and I know that wherever you live you know a lot of present day Russian situations. I don't want to pollute this messageboard with that drivel but type once in Google: russian victories. ru...awaiting your always to the point and inside comments...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 29
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Suvorovetz as an aside and I know that wherever you live you know a lot of present day Russian situations. I don't want to pollute this messageboard with that drivel but type once in Google: russian victories. ru...awaiting your always to the point and inside comments...Ìý Oh yeah, that enigmous smile...
Regarding the drive on Stalingrad, one of Wehrmacht's problems was that they could never figure out where Stalin's reserves kept creeping up from. So, Paulus got stuck, but the result could have been much worse. In all likelihood, Stalingrad counter-offensive was meant to be a diversion covering the main thrust on to Sytchovka by Zhukov. The latter wound up as pure waste. Many in Wehrmacht OKW and in Soviet GVK later acknowledged that, had Zhukov attacked Rostov instead, the entire Wehrmact Army Group South would have been cut off. -
Message 30
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Correction Many in Wehrmacht OKW and in Soviet GVKÌý it should rather be Soviet SVK with an S as in Stavka.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.