View Story | 88 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
...He would have attacked Iraq the way Hitler attacked Russia. Army Group North with 50 divisions securing the oil fields and the Kurds. Army Group Center with 50 divisions securing Baghdad. Army Group South with 50 divisions securing southern Iraq. BTW The russian winter defeated Hitler and the fact the Japanese didn't attack russia's eastern front freed-up hundreds of crack divisions Stalin used for reinforcements. Otherwise Hitler kicked their ases.
Hitler had the Death's Head SS Divisions of the Waffen SS. Anyone who opposed them was summarily shot! Anyone who looked they they opposed them was summarily shot!
No. Bush has enough problems being "Bush" much less "Hitlerian".
"Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan
by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:34:44 AM PDT
like Hitler attacked his neighbors, Rush in take the capital and the rest of France, Austria, Holland etc will fall
blue dyed in the wool, and proud of it
by princess of puters on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:07:10 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
There were many things that led to the defeat of the Germans and it started before Barbarossa even got started with the Yugoslavs providing a much greater fight than the Germans expected and thus holding up a great deal of manpower until they had the Balkans secure. Getting a later than expected start while waiting for the forces from the Balkans meant they had less time to take Moscow and Peter before winter would settle in. Further, it was a late year for the spring thaw meaning transport was more difficult in the initial phases and the fall rains came early meaning more mud at that time.
In any event, yes, winter arrived a bit earlier and stronger that year but there were other events that fed the defeat that was fairly well set in motion within two months of the start of Barbarossa.
The Russians threw forces into the initial battles and allowed attrition battles to wage in some places (e.g., Smolensk) in order to hold up foot soldiers of the Reich. At the same time, they mobilized about twice as many ready reserves as the Germans thought the Soviets had overall and regrouped farther back with more modern air forces and artillery that hadn't been utilized in the beginning.
As the Germans continued to push, they overextended themselves. When they finally had control of those insurrection zones farther back, the foot soldiers finally came forward but were constantly picked at by partisans. In general, many of the border towns allowed German passage and welcomed their liberation from Stalin.
Before the foot soldiers could arrive at the front, the Soviets began to attack German forward lines, which were mostly light armored forces, with air and artillery. This was not in friendly terrain for maximum mobility and air back up was difficult because they had few forward air bases suitable to handle the necessary aircraft (mostly partisan activity - in its initial stages at that point - prevented this but it was also the terrain itself and the lack of compacting equipment, joined by the scorched-earth policy of the Soviet organized forces in retreat).
By August, the Germans were severely stretched and they found partisan activity increase on their supply lines all throughout that year as more and more locals revolted against the Germans in light of the harsh tactics of SS forces...in severe contrast to the regular army troops. These partisan attacks made the situation with the supply line and the stretched forces up front even worse.
Now, almost two months to the day after the start of Barbarossa, with the Southern Front moving a bit more slowly than they thought it would and the Northern Front slowed in approach to Peter by a severe and strong Soviet organized military resistance (basically throwing a bunch of bodies with guns at the Germans but, given the manpower on hand, not ineffective), Hitler decided that much of the air support and many foot soldiers should be supplied to the North and South to finish those areas off before the push to Moscow.
Since Soviet strength was concentrated in the Center, they were able to attack a weakened line until the Germans regrouped in muddy October to make the push for Moscow. By then, the Germans were tired (foot soldiers by non-stop fighting) and more depleted (armored units in the center through constant attack while air and foot resources had been deployed north and south).
They made the push but it was too late.
So, to recap:
Their industry was unprepared for a sustained campaign, their troops were already over-tired and over-stretched, they did not have adequate heating units for equipment or clothing for troops to ensure sustainability through winter, and the local populations turned against them, thanks to the SS, which meant even more morale loss among ordinary troops about to be stuck in frozen, lonely, vast plains across the Soviet Union.
Give me ten lines from a good man and I'll find something in there to hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu
by lgrooney on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:55:12 AM PDT
...and couldn't find anything in your lengthy but brilliant analysis "to hang him". Very good! Thank you. I don't know how many read it but it brought back many fond memories. Studied the Reich over 40 years since childhood. Hitler was complex. Bush a "private in the Wermacht" by comparison. Bush had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and if he studied history at all would have known he didn't have enough troops on the ground to both conquer and hold Iraq. No way Hitler could hold russia with his millions-a land that dwarfs Iraq by comparison. And Bush won't win his war with a mere fraction of what Hitler had. Bush I was smart enough not to try holding Iraq and he had the manpower to do it! Now we're stuck in the middle of a civil war by his son's fatal blunder. And even now he doesn't have enough horse sense to "retreat". Hitler had his Stalingrad because he stubbornly refused to face the reality of his own defeat there and Bush has his Iraq. Both men thought they could win by the sheer force of their will. And I fear that many more of our troops will pay the price for his arrogance.
by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:29:18 AM PDT
but certainly had to do my fill of Russian history. I am much more knowledgeable of the economic/political/ social movements in Russia and the FSU but since there is such emphasis still placed on WWII everywhere in the FSU, only to a bit less of a degree in Central and Western Europe, one has to know about it to understand their frame of mind...especially if one were studious about the Cold War and is interested in the Russian mindset today. It still has a very profound effect on them even if the few veterans left don't get the same respect they once did.
Interesting, however, that their Vietnam - and one of the most divisive issues to froth up during glasnost and help weaken the Communist Party, the War in Afghanistan, doesn't hold the same sway. Perhaps it is the lack of official memorials, perhaps it is the fact that they barely brush it in schools, perhaps as one of the signifying moments in the downfall of the FSU it is still painful for too many (yes, many of those in the age ranges of 25-30 and over 60 pine for the Soviet Union at times...the younger ones because they remember the nobility on which they were educated and the together they felt with all parts, the older because it was all they knew and now there is too much chaos, too much uncertainty, too much freedom - at least compared to that available during Soviet days - and they're not equipped to deal with it; of course, the old during Brezhnev's day thought there was too much chaos and freedom as well).
One major point to be made about Stalingrad is that Hitler intervened at every level. The Germans had a breakout plan that may have been able to turn the tide (for a time as the Germans, I believe, would have ultimately had their ass handed to them by the US) but it would have involved giving ground initially and Hitler issued the order that any man falling back was to be shot. So, they stayed, got captured, lost.
Now, had they done what the generals wanted to do...who knows? And would that have been a good thing? I generally think not for while Stalin's body count was probably higher (depends on how you want to count things and where you want to lay responsibility for the various atrocities committed by either one) he had less implicit support from the people, even at the very beginning. Yes, Hitler too used terror and fear to develop his power but it was not the direct application of it that created his base of power as with Stalin. Hitler used it more at the margins...at least with his own people.
So, I think if it comes down to a Stalin victory or a Hitler victory on that front, I think it better Stalin won because the weaker support from the people meant an eventual downfall of that empire (and DIA called it as early as the 60s, i.e., from that point forward, the Soviet Union was weakening every year and Reagan had little to do with it). Had Hitler won and expanded the territory for the Germans of that day, the Reich may have been able to continue for quite some time.
by lgrooney on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:58:00 AM PDT
...analysis is again brilliant and refreshing. Have you considered a diary delineating the differences between the USSR and present day Russia? Also, the effect of Afghanistan on the fall? I for one would eagerly devour it! Also, I agree with you that Reagan gets far more credit than he is due on this subject and on many other levels.
I only found one point I would expound on your otherwise thorough assessment of Hitler v. Stalin. As you know both had terrible male role models. Stalin's father regularly used him for a punching bag during one of many of his drunken stupors. Hitler's father was more abusive emotionally and the only love or positive feedback he ever got was from his mother. As far as terrorism goes Hitler had his SS, the Gestapo, and 14 working guillotines that lopped-off the heads of anyone who even thought of opposing him. Stalin eliminated everyone that appeared a threat or had more popularity or a greater IQ. He was extremely paranoid. His mantra was, "No man. No problem." They both were mass murderers. The world is better without them!
Please seriously consider if you have the time a diary on my previous request. I thank you and greatly enjoyed your thoughts!
by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:30:44 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 88 comments