So a draw then. I can live with that.

Nice discussion, guys.

The World at War TV series devoted an entire hour episode to Stalingrad.  It was one of the best in the series. I have it on tape and if you ever get the chance to see it I strongly urge you to watch and tape it.

Quote:



I saw a program this morning on THC (History Channel) about all the "super weapons" programs that the Nazi's had going....it covered of course the V1 and V2, the jet fighters and the 163 rocket interceptor, long-range bombers (conceivably to hit the U.S.), helicopter development, remotely piloted flying bombs, etc. Probably the biggest danger was their eventual development of  the atom bomb; something that the maniacal Hitler would surely have used to wreak even more devastation on the world.

All that said, I think any malevalent regime that is bent on world conquest is doomed to fail. Germany just didn't have the numbers to do it; they didn't have the manpower or any overwhelming technological advantage for global domination. In those European countries they did conquer, they were always going to be dealing with resentful and hostile populations and resistance....if they'd ever managed to defeat the Russian army, they never could have really secured such a huge country. As for the U.S. and our industrial might.....well, world conquest just wasn't going to happen for the Axis powers.....they just weren't that powerful!

Quote:


Huh? ???

I'm not sure I get the distinction you're making between "the Reich" and the "regime"......I think they're pretty much synonymous. I do know that, ultimately, "The Reich", including the Nazi government (dictatorship) and the military that it controlled only collapsed because of Allied military force!

Hmmmmmmmmm...........

OK Woodlouse, thanks for the explanation!!

Yes, I read the "Rise and Fall" about 20 years ago. It was very 'heavy reading'. It was also extremely detailed from a 'political' point.

Still on the Russian Front, and more specifically, Stalingrad. I saw the History Channel Doco recently and also have seen "The World at War" series. Both very good Docos, and very much the same. I think because the reasons, at least those generally understood to be the 'primary' reasons for 'the first german defeat', are very much agreed upon by most people who have studied the battle and the logistical and tactical aspects that pertain thereto.

Firstly, there is the late timetable. Definitely the 'primary' undoing of the Germans, which ultimately resulted in the other aspects that have been mentioned. These being:

Firstly, the lack of proper clothing for the German troops and their perishing due to the cold.

Secondly, this time German 'precision' did not help them, as the extremely close tolerance of their equipment, from vehicles to guns, tanks and even the 'small arms' just refused to work. They relied on the close tolerances that they were designed to, and the extreme cold just completely stuffed that.

Thirdly, as I mentioned much earlier, the Germans were always going to be in trouble with their suplly line. Hundreds of miles, with much of their equipment (guns, fuel, food ammo etc) still carted by horses, who couldn't stand up to the winter any better than the Germans, (who ended up eating them, more often than not), much less travel the roads that had be 'quagmires'.

That, coupled with the single railroad that had to carry everything as all the roads became impassable.
On top of that, Goerings promise that he could supply the 800 odd tonnes of supplies required by the 6th army by air. He ended up, on his best day, getting 90 tonnes on the ground. After the first few days of the Luftwaffes pawltry effort, the Germans watched the Russians over-run what pitiful amounts of the supplies that did make it through the Russian AAA, because they lost two of the 3 airfields they held a week before and risked airdrops.

All in all, they really didn't have a chance in hell.

But as I said, but for a few weeks (as in the case of the French and Swedish before them), they were defeated by the Russian winter. (Not taking anything away from the valiant efforts and horrendous losses of the Russians).

Even as late as early January, Paulus could have gotten the majority of the surviving 6th army (some 250.00) to relative safety, through a weak line between them and Guderians forces (only miles away), but Paulus at that stage wasn't ready to defy Hitler.  He'd just been made a 'Field Marshall' (Where would they find a 'Baton'??...........lol)

Seriously though, both sides suffered terribly, in what was surely the 'dirtiest', most attritious fighting of the entire War.
To answer a previous question, more Germans did die from cold, disease and particularly starvation (and suicide, many actually!), than were killed by the enemy. 

Actually the blitzkrieg tactic worked wonderfully at the start of Barbarossa with well over a million russian soldiers surrounded and captured. But of course, that was before stalin let them retreat...