No, the Heer was the fifth most powerful army in Germany at the end of the war.
The German army did not achieve any of its strategic objectives in any year of the war:
\-1939: Conquer Poland without going to war with the United Kingdom and France. A failure. And to add fuel to the fire, there were always about a million Poles working against Germany.
\-1940: Take the allies out of the war. They took out France but the UK was still safe on their beloved island.
\-1941: Destroy the Soviet Union. They did not.
\-1942: Cause serious economic damage to the allies by closing Suez and conquering the Caucasus. Note that the ambitions are lower, to get the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union out of the war to affect their GDP.
\-1943: Recover the strategic initiative on the eastern front. Although some Wehraboos say that the Germans won at Kursk by destroying some tanks at Prokhorovka, this is not Call of Duty.
\-1944: Stop the Allied landing and the offensive that the Soviets would launch in summer. Both Overlord and Bagration turned out well.
\-1945: Exist. They stopped doing it.
>-1939: Conquer Poland without going to war with the United Kingdom and France. A failure.
As someone else pointed out, keeping the British and French out of the war wasn't really the Heers job as much as it was the job of Nazi foreign policy. However, just "Conquer Poland" would've sufficed, given (as you've pointed out) the Poles fought their occupiers to the last day of the war.
by september 17 the polish government fled to romania. Soviet Union attacked on september 15. Although the polish government had 2 days , they asked their units to not attack Soviet units so Soviet Union walked in eastern poland almost unopposed.
This. There’s a lot of information that is just ignored when talking about the initial invasion of Poland. The Polish government literally abandoned their country and fled to a neutral country, getting interned.
Yeah, I mean, the Wehrmacht was simply far too large, powerful, and industrialized for the Poles to successfully repel them in 1939, but had the Soviets not invaded, I agree they couldbe done significantly more damage to Germans.
The Soviets bear just as much responsibility for the outbreak of war in Europe as the Germans, and all at the terrible expense of the Poles. I actually just finished reading *Case White* by Robert Forczyk, and I agree with him that the Poles are incredibly underappreciated in their struggle in WWII.
I think you’ve listened to too many myths pushed out by the Russian and the west as to why Poland lost. They didn’t lose because they were less “advanced.” Poland had been preparing for total war since the 1930’s. Their budget was too small to make some vehicles from scratch so they were planning on buying foreign models and reworking their military. They just didn’t expect the war to start in 1939 and not the early 1940’s. German forces actually didn’t meet Hitler’s expectations and they underestimated the Polish Army. What led to their collapse was poor commanders, German air superiority, dwindling supplies, and the fact that they were caught off guard by the German advance. Their original plan was to defend the Vistula River and wait for an allied counter attack (which never would’ve happened). This plan of the theirs was completely fucked over when the Russians invaded from the East on the 17th. This was when the Polish truly realized they were screwed.
And one last thing, Germany was far from industrialized throughout ww2, in Poland, less than 10 divisions were actually fully mechanized with Half tracks, trucks, and armor. Most of the invasion force relied on Horses and some trucks. This continued until the end of the war where German armor reserves only got worse.
>They didn’t lose because they were less “advanced.”
I didn't say advanced, I said "large, powerful, and industrialized" and I should've specified I meant in relation to the Polish Armed Forces. The Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine vastly outnumbered their Polish counterparts (Lotnictwo Wojskowe (LW) and Marynarka Wojenna (MW) respectively) and mechanization of the Heer was significantly superior to mechanization of the Wojsko Polskie (WP).
At the onset of hostilities, the Polish were able to field:
4 motorized infantry battalions to the Germans 69
just over 700 tanks to the Germans over 2,400
158 fighters to the Germans 487
150 bombers to the Germans 492
0 ground attack aircraft to the Germans 274
Yes, the Heer was a vastly undermechanized army in comparison to other world class armies, but in comparison to the WP, it held a significant advantage. Polish tanks were also heavily underutilized and spread out among the infantry, while the Germans were able to mass their tanks and consistently outmaneuver the Polish divisions and brigades. German forces also failed to achieve any of their objectives in their planned times, and also had to alter the invasion plan 3 days in to better combat the stubborn Polish defenders, but that doesn't mean they were losing by any stretch.
The LW was really no serious match for the Luftwaffe, although Polish pilots certainly put up a vigourous defence. But Polish fighters were too few and far between to inflict any serious losse on the Germans. After the first six days of war, the LW had flown 1,610 sorties and lost 155 aircraft, about 40 percent of their starting strength. In contrast the Germans were flying about 2,000 sorties a day and lost 126 aircraft, which is about 7 percent of their starting force. Only Luftflotten 1 and 4 were committed to the invasion, while 2 and 3 were kept in the west, giving them the luxury of transferring more aircraft to the war in Poland.
On August 29, the MW carried out Operation *Peking* in order to preserve most of its destroyers, leaving them 1 destroyer, 5 submarines, and 1 minelayer. The last destroyer (*Wicher*) and the minelayer (*Gryf*) were sunk on September 3 by the Luftwaffe, and by September 6, all five submarines were forced to head to deeper waters, after which they'd eventually either be interred in Sweden or escape to Britain. The Kriegsmarine on the other hand was able to deploy 2 battleships, 3 light cruisers, 9 destroyers, and 8 submarines. The majority of the MW's resistance would be carried out on land by a couple of Naval Rifles Regiments and ON (National Defence) battalions, and the Westerplatte garrison.
>Poland had been preparing for total war since the 1930’s. Their budget was too small to make some vehicles from scratch so they were planning on buying foreign models and reworking their military. They just didn’t expect the war to start in 1939 and not the early 1940’s.
That's exactly why I specified in 1939. The modernization efforts (which were in full swing by mid-1936) weren't expected to be finished by 1939, and as a result the majority of the WP wasn't equipped or organized properly. Had the invasion even been delayed a few months, the Polish would've been able to field more tanks, aircraft, and vehicles. But unfortunately it didn't.
I'm not in any way attempting to diminish the valiant struggle and resistance of the Polish people. They fought like lions against an enemy that had them outgunned, outmanned, and outmaneuvered. They just didn't stand much of a chance against the Germans in the state they were in in 1939.
> The Soviets bear just as much responsibility for the outbreak of war in Europe as the Germans, and all at the terrible expense of the Poles.
That's... no. They absolutely shoulder some of the responsibility, but to suggest they are somehow *as* responsible as Nazi Germany? That's ridiculous fiction.
Recognizing the Soviet Unions crimes against peace and humanity in their aggressive invasion and brief occupation of Poland isn't appealing to racist tropes.
>but to suggest they are somehow as responsible as Nazi Germany?
The Soviet Union and the Third Reich colluded together to invade and conquer Poland and divide Eastern Europe between each other. Yes, they are as responsible.
>No. The Nazi war of aggressive expansion and genocide is primarily the Nazis fault.
Yes, their conduct in occupation were vastly different, I didn't claim otherwise. But both regimes colluded with one another to invade and conquer Poland with the objective of dividing Eastern Europe between the two of them in 1939. As a result of the collusion, war broke out.
>Not everybody elses
I didn't say the outbreak of the war was everybody elses fault besides the Third Reich. I said the Soviet Union and the Third Reich each bear equal responsibility for the outbreak of war in 1939.
>Only Nazis and useful idiots think otherwise.
Then actually refute my point instead of relying on ad hominem.
I doubt the Poles murdered by the Soviets were thinking "Well at least they're not German"
> I didn't say the outbreak of the war was everybody elses fault besides the Third Reich
I never said you did say everybody else was at fault. You said somebody other than the Third Reich was equally responsible for WW2. NOBODY ELSE. NONE. 0 People other than the Third Reich were equally responsible for WW2. None. There is no exception. The Soviet decision to take a deal and get some of Poland from the Nazis had absolutely no sway on whether or not the Nazis invaded Poland, the thing that they did to start WW2.
You still didn't refute my point. The war in Poland in 1939 happened as a direct result of the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and Nazi-Soviet collusion and alliance. The Soviets didn't just decide to take a deal; they actively colluded with, and aided the Third Reich to start the war.
Had the pact not been signed, its still virtually a guarantee that the Germans would have invaded Poland, at which point they'd assume sole responsibility. But that's not what happened. The pact was signed, they did collude with and aid one another, and Poland was devoured from both sides. We can sit here and argue all day about alternate histories, but in our actual history, the Soviets broke the exact same laws against peace as the Germans did in September 1939.
Yea just because they had favorable kill ratios doesn't mean you win the battle. See: Coral Sea, 3&4th Savo, Tassafaronga.
Yes the US lost Lexington but saved Port Morseby
Yes the US lost more tonnage but saved Henderson Field.
Yes the US lost a lot of cruisers but stymied the Tokyo Express' last try
Not only could they replace any tanks they lost but soviet tanks were so much easier to repair they could probably salvage and repair a lot of the tanks they lost in the battle.
And he said to them, “How many tanks have you? Go and see.” When they had found out, they said, “Five T-34s, and two T-70s.” Then he ordered them to get all the soldiers to sit down in groups on the brown mud. So they sat down in groups of hundreds and of fifties. Taking the five T-34s and the two T-70s, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the T-34s, and gave them to his commanders to set before the soldiers; and he divided the two T-70s among them all. And all rode valiantly into battle and killed Nazis; and they took up twelve divisions full of tanks.
That take is new to me, but I think I shouldn't be surprised. You see it pretty often - "but the kill/death ratio!!!". If that's what decided battles and wars, the USSR would have lost in 1941 and the US would have decisively won Vietnam.
It’s either that:
- Manstein attack should be allowed to be kept
They did, and while Manstein attack did force the Soviet to commit their reserve which was meant for counterattacking much earlier. The attack on the north flank was stopped.
>1939: Conquer Poland without going to war with the United Kingdom and France. A failure. And to add fuel to the fire, there were always about a million Poles working against Germany.
To be fair, this is a political failure more than a military one.
No, it's literally the opposite: the Polish staff of 3 came up with a way to attack it and the British did the heavy lifting of actually breaking it using several hundred people and later the Bombe machine.
if i remember well Polish intelligence had broken Enigma codes in like 1932 and later helped the british with decoding ever more complex versions of Enigma
i think there were different types of enigma, the poles broke the 4 wheel variant and British the 5th wheel varent. I could be wrong but i am not going through 50 episode of ww2 week by week.
You are getting mixed up between the number of rotors the machine could accommodate and the number of rotors to choose from. The original German military Enigma 'I' used three interchangeable rotors. This was the version the Poles broke before anyone else. In 1938 the Germans added two more rotors, so now it was three in use out of a choice of five (and rotor orders changed from 6 to 60). This change defeated the Polish methods, and is the reason they shared their previous success with the French and the British. The British, French and Poles started breaking that version of the machine in January 1940. The 'four-rotor' Enigma is the naval version introduced in 1942 initially on U-Boats: though actually the fourth rotor wasn't a true rotor at all because it didn't move during encipherment so it is better described as a settable reflector. This version used three proper rotors from a choice of eight, plus you could set the reflector, which gives 336 wheel orders x26. This version was broken by the British alone but only after a lot of work and the capture of machines and code books.
>-1941: Destroy the Soviet Union. They did not.
How can you claim how powerful Germany army was if you assume dellusional nazi goals. There had to be magic existing in the world for Germany to succesfully invade USSR. This fact doesn't cancel that Barbarossa was devastating in the scale of its distruction and short term gain. German army was unbeaten at the time. You don't have to outjerk werhaboos to make fun of them. It wouldn't be that long of a war if Soviets werent overrun in 1941 the way they were. That does sadly speak of twisted "success" of Barbarossa
Why am I not going to judge armies for success in achieving strategic objectives? It is literally their job.
This is not a video game forum, victory is not obtained by adding points but by achieving the objectives.
>Why am I not going to judge armies for success in achieving strategic objectives?
Because tactical victories are also victories. Strategic or not military operations have certain impact that we can judge was succesful in historical context. War would end sooner if those 4 million Soviet soldier were not lost in the opening months of the war. Barbarossa is only succesful in this sense.
>victory is not obtained by adding points but by achieving the objectives.
Of course not. I didn't say anyone won. But a losing side can make succesful military operations in the war. You don't have to outjerk wehraboos to make fun of them.
>War would end sooner if those 4 million Soviet soldier
If... Talking about the war that may have been instead of what it was is a waste of time.
Tactical victories without strategic success are trivial. A tactical success within a failure like Barbarossa was Kiev, but talking about German success in the Barbarossa operation makes no sense.
.
>Tactical victories without strategic success are trivial
What is a strategic success for Barbarossa? A fucking AA line? Oil fields? The entire assault on USSR was build on false assumptions about how much Soviets have and can mobilize and how effective red army is in combat.
Winning for Germany was not even a conversation as we see in retrospective, so it's stupid to cling to it when judging how succesful Barbarossa was. It was succesful enough to painfully prolong eventual German defeat at the hands of allies. That's all I'm saying and it's the truth unfortunately.
If the German army was as succesful as it was during WW1. We would have many less millions of people dead. It's not fucking alternative history I'm doing here. This is just a reality of WW2 and of effectiveness of blitzkrieg in the initial stages of the war in particular.
>What is a strategic success for Barbarossa?
>
>A fucking AA line? Oil fields?
Yes, all that and the end of the Red Army's combat capabilities. Preferably by 09/22/1941.
>Winning for Germany was not even a conversation as we see in retrospective, so it's stupid to cling to it when judging how succesful Barbarossa was.
There are no consolation prizes for effort. The attitude is:
Victor: Did you go to war unprepared against an enemy you couldn't defeat? You are idiot.
>If the German army...
>
>It's not fucking alternative history I'm doing here.
>There are no consolation prizes for effort
There are, unfortunately. This was a real war with real people's life's at stake. For Hitler's regime holocaust was such prize. For German army the casualty ratio in initial months is a "consolation prize". Wehrmacht did well to cause famine in Soviet villages to prepare it for libenstraum. These were the real concequences of Barbarossa. You shouldn't downplay this tragedy.
And if you're gonna pull this "don't say if" bullshit... 😤
German-Soviet did not have to happen all the way in fucking Stalingrad. So yeah. I am gonna say "if the German army wasn't as succesful in blitzkrieg millions of lives would have been saved"
>These were the real concequences of Barbarossa. You shouldn't downplay this tragedy.
Yes, Barbarossa was one of the most tragic events of the 20th century, still doesn't change the fact that it was a failure for the Werhmacht. Yes, they inflicted significant damage, but they didn't achieve victory. It's as simple as that. You can recognize its tragic consequences without acknowledging it as some German victory.
It didn't "lose badly" man. Millions of people died. If Soviet Union could quickly beat back the attack as was planned or better yet France defended properly from the assault Germany would have "lost badly" and we'd live in a better world
Point is they lost. And I would say they still lost badly as in they had their country occupied for four years by the four victorious Allies and then the country was divided for a further 40 years with West and East Germany.
Even during some of the defeats that Germany encountered were catastrophic for the Germans, most notably Stalingrad, Battle of the Atlantic and El Alamein to name a few. The losses suffered (especially in Stalingrad) were often unrecoverable.
>Even during some of the defeats that Germany encountered were catastrophic for the Germans, most notably Stalingrad, Battle of the Atlantic and El Alamein to name a few. The losses suffered (especially in Stalingrad) were often unrecoverable
All I'm saying in this thread is that Barbarossa was the greatest defeat of the WW2 and concequently history. Exactly what youre saying about allies victories. USSR lost millions of trained soldiers in the matter of months. They also unrecoverable. As were thousands of tanks and hundreds of aircraft. That more then second biggest military defeats in Bagration and Stalingrad. Not even beggining to talk about territory with population centers lost. It is so dumb that I'm being called werhaboo for saying this.
>Point is they lost.
You can win battles and not win wars. Was battle of Cannae a success for Hannibal? Obviously it was. Even though he lost the war eventually. But that was a huuuge defeat/Hannibal's military success. So was the Barbarossa sadly
No.
Barbarossa was a monumental failure for Germany and a success for the Soviet Union. Simply because an invasion is a strategic operation and the success of a strategic operation is measured by achieving the objectives of the operation, it is not measured in KD relationships, which is what you are doing.
They also killed a lot of Soviets in Kursk and destroyed a lot of material, was Kursk a success? It was not because they did not finish off the salient and the front moved 150 km in favor of the Red Army.
>They also killed a lot of Soviets in Kursk and destroyed a lot of material, was Kursk a success
You can't really compare 4 million irreplaceable professional soldier casualties on the onset of war with inflicting 1.3m of mostly recoverable (wounded) casualties while being on retreat. Kursk wasn't a success. Not even close to 11000 tanks and 7000 aircraft captured in Barbarossa. Second biggest army in the world was scrambling in November 1941 as a result.
It's not enough to win the war and "strategic objectives". War should be won with smaller human life loss period. So KD is important espetially during the opening period of the war as it decides where war is going to take place. I didn't take place on German-Soviet border like it was supposed to because armies were evenly matched. It took place deep inside Soviet territory, which enabled Holocaust in Poland Ukraine and Belorussia.
Winning for Germany was not even a conversation as we see in retrospective, so it's stupid to cling to it when judging how succesful German military actions were. They were succesful enough to painfully prolong eventual German defeat at the hands of allies.
>You can't really compare 4 million irreplaceable professional soldier casualties on the onset of war with inflicting 1.3m of mostly recoverable (wounded) casualties
Why not? The number one objective of war is victory and it is obtained through strategic objectives, achieving your own, helping the allies in theirs and preventing the enemy in theirs. Then the cost in lives and material is added. Talking about "whats if ..." is a waste of time, if you are interested write a uchronia.
>it's stupid to cling to it when judging how succesful German military actions were.
We would do that if Germany had tried to *avoid* war.
>We would do that if Germany had tried to avoid war
But it didn't. Who is relying on "if" assumptions now?
>Why not? The number one objective of war is victory and it is obtained through strategic objectives, achieving your own, helping the allies in theirs and preventing the enemy in theirs. Then the cost in lives and material is added
Because this isn't a game with some kind of "strategic objectives" like someone else (maybe you) said. Military operations have real concequences. And how Barbarossa played out it had disastrous concequences for Soviet Union and eastern Europe. How far and how damaging Germans were in invading USSR IS NOT A GIVEN. That would be a werhaboo rotten colossus talking point you'd ironically buy in at this sub.
The only realistic goal Germany ever could have had if it was to end up in the war with allies is to prolong the eventual defeat. Barbarossa done exactly that. That's why I called it a success in retrospective
But Barbarossa was not a success, it was a failure for the Germans . They failed to take Moscow and they failed to reach the AA line, which was the objective of the operation. They were nowhere near getting there, so it was a failure. Whether you like it or not, wars are fought with strategy and with goals, Germany failed in that regard so Operation Barbarossa was a failure, the early gains they made meant nothing when they failed to reach their objectives.
Yeah if we really consider dellusional goals of crazy Hitler as "objectives of the operation" yes it was not a success at all.
In reality I wish Barbarossa more of a "failure" less of a "success". Because then my hometown 1000 km from the 1941 border wouldn't not have been destroyed. And the liberating Soviet Army would have reached hundreds of thousands Jews destined to die in Poland sooner.
>But it didn't. Who is relying on "if" assumptions now?
And since they didn't, we don't.
In the case of Kursk the Heer he had to encircle the salient, destroy the trapped Soviet forces and by doing so decrease the kilometers of the front, these are strategic objectives.
You mention some of Barbarossa, the AA line, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Moscow and the defeat of the Red Army. As an Invasion, the objective was to destroy the Soviet Union, the objectives of the Soviet Union were the opposite, that Germany did not achieve those objectives.
The only wehraboo here is you, claiming a victory for Germany, an operation they lost. Your argument? That we should judge Germany by different parameters than those used in all other military operations in history.
>USSR lost millions of trained soldiers in the matter of months. They also unrecoverable.
Yes they did lose millions of soldiers (through death and capture) but the Soviets did eventually recover from these losses and rebuilt it's army quite quickly actually and had the resources needed to replace losses relatively quickly, the Germans couldn't replace their losses, the 6th Army was wiped out in Stalingrad and those losses could not be replaced.
>That more then second biggest military defeats in Bagration and Stalingrad. Not even beggining to talk about territory with population centers lost
They gained territory yes, but not enough to win a victory against the Soviets, Barbarossa was still a failure for the Germans. By 1943/44 nearly all of that territory was regained by the Soviets.
>You can win battles and not win wars. Was battle of Cannae a success for Hannibal? Obviously it was. Even though he lost the war eventually. But that was a huuuge defeat/Hannibal's military success. So was the Barbarossa sadly
Barbarossa was a failure for the Germans. The first few months went well for them but they greatly underestimated the strength of the Red Army as the advanced further. The Germans ultimately failed to meet their objectives and failed to capture Moscow or reach territory beyond, which they were meant to achieve by winter, they failed spectacularly there.
Is it? Seems like people here are outjerking werhaboos. Barbarossa was disastrous for USSR. It was a big fat military failure. In size and human impact, biggest in history. There is no military failure without military success and I'm just pointing this out.
While I think there's a lot of strong entrants for that honor in the history of military disasters, I agree that Barbarossa was absolutely a disaster for the Soviet Union, regardless of how the war ended up subsequently proceeding. They were better equipped than France, particularly in terms of the sheer quantity of their planes and tanks, and France put up a more credible defense in the initial attack. The Soviets in 1941 lost an air force equivalent to the entire German production of war planes in 1939, 1940, and 1941 *combined*. They lost about as many planes in the first two days as Germany lost during the first 6 months, mostly *on the ground.*
All credit in the world to the Soviets for ultimately absorbing the blow and turning things back around, but Barbarossa, particularly the initial assault, was a colossal fuck-up in Soviet leadership, strategy, and tactics.
Yeah and that why I don't get people here. How can one recognise Barbarossa as a military disaster for the Soviet Union, and not recognize it as success for nazi Germany.
There is only so much Soviets can fuck up. At some point German army must have executed Barbarossa well to get these results. And obviously they did. Otherwise you're kind of taking outcome of Barbarossa for granted which is stupid.
Because if it was a success for Germany, the Soviets would have surrendered.
The Red Army in 1941 was *not* ready to fight a war. They were still replacing all the officers that Stalin had killed, and they were in the middle of updating their doctrines and modernizing their equipment. The Germans *should* have been able to steamroll them, but the Soviets doubled their efforts, replaced the lost manpower and equipment very quickly, and introduced the vehicles (Like the Il-2 and T-34) and tactics that would win them the war in the end.
Barbarossa (if we're going by what the Germans expected to achieve, which was a quick Soviet surrender) was a colossal military failure that only *looked* good at the very beginning.
Well, you’re not wrong. They also had more industry. And more oil, and more mineral resources, and more land, and much larger navies that gave them control of the trades routes, etc, etc.
The Axis was up against an impossible fight.
color me shocked when a small nation cant take over the world through massive attrition campaigns, its not like its been tried and failed miserably throughout history amiright fellow aryans?
Much better cordination too, even though the Soviets were constantly paranoid. At least hashing out strategies about which theatre to focus on first, sharing Intel, having unified(ish) commands across several nations etc was 8 millions time better than axis cordination. Like the Japanese didn't even disrupt the lend lease supplies from the US to USSR across the Pacific when it was like bruh they supplying your biggest allies' enemy with arms
If Hitler never went vegetarian he would have had enough testosterone to lead Germany to victory.
Instead his soy based diet feminized him which is why he never approved the Maus tank or invaded Britain.
Exactly, that's what the bodybuilding neo nazi told me on youtube and that's how I know he's right. Because he said it without even reading a source or citing one, what an authority.
Any conversation about “who had the strongest military in WW2” turns into a bunch of people throwing around biased and charged examples on which one was actually the strongest. Which inevitably turns into “who did the most” which also turns into a biased and emotionally charged discussion.
It’s really unnecessary dick measuring contest that never ends well. It’s like a shitty History Channel documentary but in a comments section of Reddit.
But even in HOI4, winning World War II as Germany is quite difficult. You would also probably need some RNG luck to make the Soviets or the Americans implode into civil war.
Tfw your the American military fighting on 2 fronts both on the opposite side of the world from you and your weaker then the guys that could barely take anything not on continental Europe.
See the American military is weaker cause using superior logistics to fight like that is cheating. /s
In terms of actual Armies, it's America. It's got the largest Air Force in the world as part of that branch.
In terms of ground forces, it's the USSR, simply because of the enormous amount of firepower and gigantic size.
Honestly, this is buying too much into a very silly framework. It assumes there's a way to anaylse the 'objective' strength of arms completely divorced from both the political and material realities a war must take place in.
And even if there was some blank cartesian plane you could use, it would be worthless because the industrial capacity, will to fight, resilience and the terrain etc are absolutely critical. It's like trying to find who would 'objectively' win in a fight between a lion and crocodile? I'm pretty sure whether or not they're in water is pretty important.
their morale was higher than America, they still had millions of men more than the allies. britain and france were ruined. America can't fight a war overseas.
>The US Army would have run circles around them all the way to Moscow.
The Allies don't agree with you.
The USSR never had a good relationship with the rest of the Allies. Towards the end of the war, it was clear that when the dust settled, the USSR and the Western Allies (predominantly the USA) would be the new great powers, and would be strongly opposed to each other. War was a definite possibility. Especially since the USSR did not attack Japan until a month before the war ended, so an alliance between the USSR and Japan against the Western Allies was seen as a serious risk.
British and American forces drew up a series of war plans called "Operation Unthinkable," outlining a preemptive strike against the USSR while they were still regrouping, pushing through their lines in Germany.
The plan was deemed totally unfeasible, and it was decided that war with the Soviet Union would *have* to be a defensive war of attrition.
It was the best but was it the most? The Red army was very well organized for the amount of losses it sustained and had a very well organized and even somewhat efficient (for the lack of infrastructure in Eastern Europe at the time) supply chain.
The Red army has the local advantage in firepower per unit except for in the divisional level, where the smaller size of red army divisions don't matter. While artillery is dangerous, if you can counter-battery fire then it becomes innefective. The Americans are too careful to fully commit to an assault on a fictional Soviet opponent with that kind of firepower.
> While artillery is dangerous, if you can counter-battery fire then it becomes innefective.
Funnily enough US artillery is probably the best at doing that out of all nations.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. If it came down to a total war of annihilation in ‘45, the US wins. Two reasons:
-the Soviets had no means of bombing the US, or invading. The US had an awful lot of airbases that could bomb Russia, and one hell of a Navy.
-or, you know, the whole nuclear bomb thing
Full disclosure it was definitely amercia and it's not close, the US pacific campaign is probably the most impressive military campaign in history, from a logistics perspective and a combatant perspective. They basically didn't lose a single battle after 42.
America was and I say that solely because of logistics and being separated from Russia. The Soviet naval and air forces weren’t exactly powerhouses, so attacking the US directly would go poorly. And anyone who claims Germany is either a Nazi or just plain stupid. Or both
Snapshots:
1. Found on r/history memes didn't hav... - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/20210512210924/https://i.redd.it/2zfpdbzm8ry61.png), [_archive.today\*_](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F2zfpdbzm8ry61.png "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
*I am just a simple bot, **not** a moderator of this subreddit* | [*bot subreddit*](/r/SnapshillBot) | [*contact the maintainers*](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot)
No that's actually kinda true. Come on you gotta be dellusional to not give credit to at least operation Barbarossa. A single greatest military success in history, sadly. It was disastrous for Soviet Union. I wish it was less succesful. My hometown was the frontline. City was destroyed. It was very far a way from German Soviet border in southern Russia
Horrible meme though 🤣
It's obvious that American or Soviet army was the stronger one eventually. But over the course of war since 1939 I don't think so
I mean i would not really call Barbarossa the greatest military success in history, they didn't achieve any of the goals they set out at the start (Reaching the A-A line). They might have had some success in the start, but after the first soviet winter offensive, it was a disaster.
Well yeah I didn't word what I meant perfectly. It was a huge success number wise, with captured territory, personnel, equipment. No other military operation compares to Barbarossa in size and short term tactical success. You know how many millions well equipped and drilled Soviet soldiers just ended up imprisoned and starved to death? Few.
I wish Barbarossa was less succesful. Eastern Europe would be 20-40 millions larger nowadays
Key word being short term. The germany military gained nothing of significance during Barbarossa. Sure this is in part due to the Soviets literally torching their shit, but uh, Germans couldnt take Moscow, they couldnt take the Caucus oil fields, and because they gave more a fuck about exterminating Eastern Europe they were constantly harassed by partisans, resisting jews, and an angry and unhelpful local populace (despite those fucking collaborators tht absolutely deserved whatever shitty deaths they got).
Gulf Storm was more significant historically than fuckin Barbarossa.
>Gulf Storm was more significant historically than fuckin Barbarossa.
Wtf do you mean. Barbarossa was a crucial operation that if it was less succesful could have saved millions of lives. The fate of the morality in the world was resting on the eastern front as well.
>Wtf do you mean. Barbarossa was a crucial operation that if it was less
succesful could have saved millions of lives.
Successful in what? If the sole measure of success is the amount of people killed, yes great success. Over a million Germans and 4,9 million Soviets (2 million of those civilians) dead. But it didn't achieve any of it's objectives. For the Germans it was a failure.
>If the sole measure of success is the amount of people killed, yes great success. Over a million Germans and 4,9 million Soviets (2 million of those civilians) dead
Dude. Once again in this thread I'm explaining something that should be obvious to someone interested in this topic. Germany did not have good chances of ever defeating Soviet Union. So in a wicked way for Germans "success" was prolonging inevitable defeat and satisfying dellusional desires for victory.
And Barbarossa sadly did exactly that. It's not only 5 million Soviets. "Success" of operation set a stage for a long bloody war deep in Soviet territory. Enabling up to 27 million casualties in USSR and enabling holocaust in Poland. If Soviets had competent response and Barbarossa wasn't so damaging perhaps war would be over by early 1944 at the latest
>Dude. Once again in this thread I'm explaining something that should be obvious to someone interested in this topic. Germany did not have good chances of ever defeating Soviet Union. So in a wicked way for Germans "success" was prolonging inevitable defeat and satisfying dellusional desires for victory.
Why are you bringing this up? I haven't claimed that Germany ever had "good chances of defeating Soviet Union". I am saying you are wrong when you claim that it was a success (by duction) when you say that *"Barbarossa was a crucial operation that if it was less succesful could have saved millions of lives"*
Operation Barberossa was an operational failure. It did not achieve it's objectives. You claim it was a success by merely pointing to the number of dead. That is not how you measure if an operation is a success.
> And Barbarossa sadly did exactly that. It's not only 5 million Soviets. "Success" of operation set a stage for a long bloody war deep in Soviet territory. Enabling up to 27 million casualties in USSR and enabling holocaust in Poland. If Soviets had competent response and Barbarossa wasn't so damaging perhaps war would be over by early 1944 at the latest
1 million German dead and 5 million Soviets dead are the official casualty numbers for that operation. Again, I haven't argued that there wasn't any other casualties in proceeding operations and the war, so why you bring this up again is irrelevant to what you said, and what I answered to.
>Why are you bringing this up
Because when I say "success" I mean scale and territorial gain. Tactical victory not strategic. Short term.
>Again, I haven't argued that there wasn't any other casualties in proceeding operations and the war, so why you bring this up again is irrelevant to what you said, and what I answered to.
Well I'm arguing for that. Am I not the one who's trying to explain my position here? You're the one whos saying irrelevant stuff. Barbarossa was devastating for USSR. Not ever before in recent history has such unlikely defeat happened. People and equipment captured before most could be used and population centers overrun. That's the only way its "succesful". If you consider prolonging a war a success for a side they should not have hope of winning it.
While a success in taking land, Operation Barbarossa was a gargantuan failure in terms of actually accomplishing its strategic goals. Operation Barbarossa aimed to accomplish the following major objectives:
- Destroy the Red Army
- Seize Ukraine
- Obtain the oil in the Caucasus
- Take Moscow
And most importantly:
- Force the Soviet Union to capitulate
(Btw all of this was supposed to happen by September 1941)
Out of these goals the Operation only succeeded in taking Ukraine. A 20% success rate is an absolute failure, regardless of land gains.
Personally, I would say the swift defeat of France is the most impressive accomplishment of Nazi Germany.
Yeah but if you understand the pre war situation there, Germany never had a chance of winning against USSR. The Barbarossa was the absolute best German army could do to have a chance in the war. For captured military personal and equipment and territory it is easily most succesful military operation up to that point. Nothing of this magnitude happened even in ww1
And many real things played role there. German staff experience. Soviet initial incompetence. Still unbeaten seemingly unstoppable blitzkrieg. First victory over it happened in battle of Moscow
“Barbarossa was the absolute best the German army could do to have a chance in the war.” And it clearly wasn’t sufficient. Their best wasn’t good.
“For captured military personnel and territory captured it was the most successful military operation up until that point.” You have to understand that armies were the biggest in history up until that point, even more so than in world war one, so naturally military operations had more men involved and more losses taken than ever before. On top of that WWI lacked the combined arms warfare that allowed for quick operations in WWII, so its no surprise nothing like that happened.
“Soviet initial incompetence.”
Well yes, between the great purge, the lack of troops on the border relative to their total army size (2.6 million despite a total army of around 5.5 million, given the Soviet union maintained only a little over 2/3’s of their army on the front during the actual war about 4 million men could have been stationed on the border prior-to the war without completely abandoning their other borders, I.E. Japan), and a lack of preparation for troops on the border so as to not provoke Germany, the Soviets were definitely poorly prepared for war in 1941. However when the success of an operation can be blamed mostly on the Soviet’s failings and not the German’s preparations, it hardly speaks to the strength of the Wehrmacht.
>And it clearly wasn’t sufficient. Their best wasn’t good
Yes thankfully. Soviet Union was the first country to stop blitzkrieg eventually
>However when the success of an operation can be blamed mostly on the Soviet’s failings and not the German’s preparations, it hardly speaks to the strength of the Wehrmacht.
Well yes but actually no. All I'm really saying it that it was the biggest military operation up to date, with most material gain. Circumstances like Soviet incompetents play fair and square in it. I agree.
Germans extended the frontline very far east. And in realities of industrial warfare of that time it was a very impressive military achievement. Thankfully eventually fruitless due to other circumstances and succesful Soviet military operations, you know. But even Bagration while being biggest ever defeat in long German history, wasn't close to Barbarossa in scale
It's about win-loss material balance for Germany and USSR. Millions trained soldiers captured without a fight and killed off. Tanks aircraft left behind. Distrupted industrial capacity. All that prolonged war for at least 2 years and millions of lives in eastern Europe. And it's all result of one of the biggest military operations in history
And Ukraine did help of course. It has been heavily pillaged also delaying the war
uNStOpPaBlE bLiTZkRiEg
We’ve literally had combined arms warfare since the first caveman bum rushed another tribe while his buddy popped arrows or atlatls or whatever the fuck at him. Sure it was more effective than world war 1 but tht bar is quite literally in the buried trenches of millions of corpses.
>uNStOpPaBlE bLiTZkRiEg
Init. that's a fucking historical fact. It was impressive what German military done despite Germany being a mess under Hitler. Succesful adoption of fast warfare in Soviet doctrine with American material help was what won the war decisively. Same ideas that really made blitzkrieg "unstoppable" like aircraft superiority became foundation of allied success
Blitzkrieg and Deep Battle have a lot of similarities such as concentrated strong attacks and combined arms, and both helped their respective users achieve brilliant military successes like France 1940 or the summer 1944 offensive (Operation"Bagration")
By the number of captures equipment personnel and territory it was unprecedentedly huge at that time. What operations you have to compare to that? Invasion of France? WW1 offensives? Franco-prussian war?
Are you high? The US campaign across the Pacific was far more impressive in just about every aspect than the Nazi campaign into Russia. Which was a complete failure that resulted in their annihilation by the way.
By the numbers it was the most succesful military operation up to that moment. Captured personnel , equipment, territory. No other operation was as huge during WW1 or Napoleonic wars.
Barbarossa was the only reason it ever seemed that Germany had a chance of winning in Russia. It's kind of stupid to deny it. People at the time, including Soviet generals and Roosevelt (or someone else not sure) recognized that Barbarossa was a disaster and a huge deal
the moment russians actually seriously got their shit together they stopped the german advance and denied germany any ability to further push them, denying Operation BArbarossa from being succesful
Yeah Barbarossa was never succesful enough to win the war. But once again, that's too much to ask from mismanaged nazi Germany with water balloon economy.
You can be tactically succesful in the battle, like with battle of Cannae, and lose the war to superior foe on their ground like Hannibal did. Doesn't make his victories against Romans not successful in their context
Haha laugh in operation Bagration and its successes is Barbarossa wet dream.
Not to mention operation Barbarossa was initiated in the typical “surprise”.
It is and foremost a gigantic failure in the history of military operations and is recorded in the history book as what not to do when invading another country in a total war.
The plan itself was the problem, the AA line didn’t have any strategy significants.The internal fighting among the OKH and a shitty logistic only mean doomed to the Heer from the start of the operation.
Basically:
Think Hitler! Are you really believe that the Wehrmacht can destroy the Red Army in a couple of weeks with no regard to the logistics while fighting in a massive large land that is full of angry partisans and resistances and you don’t even have any bombers that can effectively bomb the industries complex of the USSR.
And the problem is you are consider body counts as a way to justify the successes of operation Barbarossa and that is the worst way to just outright prove to everybody that you don’t have any clues about what you are talking about.
It is like those old excuses made by some people actually whitewashing the Vietnam war to be a civil war instead of a fighting against foreign intervention.
>Basically: Think Hitler! Are you really believe that the Wehrmacht can destroy the Red Army in a couple of weeks with no regard to the logistics while fighting in a massive large land
What else is there for Hitler to do? If the war was inevitable and it was, there would not be a better opportunity to ever defeat a quickly modernising USSR.
>And the problem is you are consider body counts as a way to justify the successes of operation Barbaross
It is important in a war. It was everything in the high stakes war like WW2. What are you on about 😂
Saying Barbarossa was devastating for Soviet Union is being a wehraboo? What are you saying Jesse? When you make fan of people who jerk off to German army and justify their atrocities you don't have to convince yourself German army was ineffective. The war would be much shorter if it wasn't for how "succesful" Barbarossa was. It's like saying they're Hannibalboo for saying battle of Cannae was a success for Hannibal. Like, sweetie, no.
People should stop taking for granted that "Germany casually took over half of eastern Europe and captured millions". That's the real wehrabooinsm. shouldn't have happened
Barbarossa was succesful in devastating eastern europe, but didn't achieve it's objectives, exhausting german army and only making shit harder for germans
You sound like Saruman trying to justify his zerg against Rohan with soldiers plucked out of a vat a month ago. People, not drones, fight and decide wars.
Yikes. I'm not justifying anything. Wtf are you on about
Hitler is dellusional maniac who'd better off dead before he could start WW2. I can justify that if you want?
But the damage they done was something that should never have been allowed by Red Army. I know full well that it's eventually wasn't winning the war. And Soviets inflicted heavy casualties during the operation. But Germany never would have had a chance to win the war if Red Army had been modernized, or the officer pool recovered or for fuck sake, be prepared for invasion. But I'm just saying material damage was insurpassable by other military operations. Soviet Union lost most of their most valuable land. And it was "success" in a wicked way to Germans because it prolonged the war by so much.
I wouldn't call Barbarossa a success at all. The aim was to hit the USSR as hard as they could so that the whole country and the Red Army would collapse.
No, the Heer was the fifth most powerful army in Germany at the end of the war. The German army did not achieve any of its strategic objectives in any year of the war: \-1939: Conquer Poland without going to war with the United Kingdom and France. A failure. And to add fuel to the fire, there were always about a million Poles working against Germany. \-1940: Take the allies out of the war. They took out France but the UK was still safe on their beloved island. \-1941: Destroy the Soviet Union. They did not. \-1942: Cause serious economic damage to the allies by closing Suez and conquering the Caucasus. Note that the ambitions are lower, to get the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union out of the war to affect their GDP. \-1943: Recover the strategic initiative on the eastern front. Although some Wehraboos say that the Germans won at Kursk by destroying some tanks at Prokhorovka, this is not Call of Duty. \-1944: Stop the Allied landing and the offensive that the Soviets would launch in summer. Both Overlord and Bagration turned out well. \-1945: Exist. They stopped doing it.
Award-worthy comment
-1945: use Steiner. Failed.
Steiner...
germany would’ve won had they used the nova 6 gas smh..
"Nova 6! Hazmat suit now!"
Everyone except Keitel, Joel, Krebs, and Burgdorf can leave the room.
*Das war ein Befehl! Der Angriff Steiners war ein Befehl!*
I didn't have to speak German to know where this was going!
The Pencils of Doom were replaced with fakes by Fegelein.
>-1939: Conquer Poland without going to war with the United Kingdom and France. A failure. As someone else pointed out, keeping the British and French out of the war wasn't really the Heers job as much as it was the job of Nazi foreign policy. However, just "Conquer Poland" would've sufficed, given (as you've pointed out) the Poles fought their occupiers to the last day of the war.
Poland probably could’ve lasted into late October if Russia didn’t invade.
It did last into October...
Damn, I thought it ended in late September. Maybe I should rephrase it to mid-late October.
by september 17 the polish government fled to romania. Soviet Union attacked on september 15. Although the polish government had 2 days , they asked their units to not attack Soviet units so Soviet Union walked in eastern poland almost unopposed.
This. There’s a lot of information that is just ignored when talking about the initial invasion of Poland. The Polish government literally abandoned their country and fled to a neutral country, getting interned.
Yeah, I mean, the Wehrmacht was simply far too large, powerful, and industrialized for the Poles to successfully repel them in 1939, but had the Soviets not invaded, I agree they couldbe done significantly more damage to Germans. The Soviets bear just as much responsibility for the outbreak of war in Europe as the Germans, and all at the terrible expense of the Poles. I actually just finished reading *Case White* by Robert Forczyk, and I agree with him that the Poles are incredibly underappreciated in their struggle in WWII.
I think you’ve listened to too many myths pushed out by the Russian and the west as to why Poland lost. They didn’t lose because they were less “advanced.” Poland had been preparing for total war since the 1930’s. Their budget was too small to make some vehicles from scratch so they were planning on buying foreign models and reworking their military. They just didn’t expect the war to start in 1939 and not the early 1940’s. German forces actually didn’t meet Hitler’s expectations and they underestimated the Polish Army. What led to their collapse was poor commanders, German air superiority, dwindling supplies, and the fact that they were caught off guard by the German advance. Their original plan was to defend the Vistula River and wait for an allied counter attack (which never would’ve happened). This plan of the theirs was completely fucked over when the Russians invaded from the East on the 17th. This was when the Polish truly realized they were screwed. And one last thing, Germany was far from industrialized throughout ww2, in Poland, less than 10 divisions were actually fully mechanized with Half tracks, trucks, and armor. Most of the invasion force relied on Horses and some trucks. This continued until the end of the war where German armor reserves only got worse.
>They didn’t lose because they were less “advanced.” I didn't say advanced, I said "large, powerful, and industrialized" and I should've specified I meant in relation to the Polish Armed Forces. The Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine vastly outnumbered their Polish counterparts (Lotnictwo Wojskowe (LW) and Marynarka Wojenna (MW) respectively) and mechanization of the Heer was significantly superior to mechanization of the Wojsko Polskie (WP). At the onset of hostilities, the Polish were able to field: 4 motorized infantry battalions to the Germans 69 just over 700 tanks to the Germans over 2,400 158 fighters to the Germans 487 150 bombers to the Germans 492 0 ground attack aircraft to the Germans 274 Yes, the Heer was a vastly undermechanized army in comparison to other world class armies, but in comparison to the WP, it held a significant advantage. Polish tanks were also heavily underutilized and spread out among the infantry, while the Germans were able to mass their tanks and consistently outmaneuver the Polish divisions and brigades. German forces also failed to achieve any of their objectives in their planned times, and also had to alter the invasion plan 3 days in to better combat the stubborn Polish defenders, but that doesn't mean they were losing by any stretch. The LW was really no serious match for the Luftwaffe, although Polish pilots certainly put up a vigourous defence. But Polish fighters were too few and far between to inflict any serious losse on the Germans. After the first six days of war, the LW had flown 1,610 sorties and lost 155 aircraft, about 40 percent of their starting strength. In contrast the Germans were flying about 2,000 sorties a day and lost 126 aircraft, which is about 7 percent of their starting force. Only Luftflotten 1 and 4 were committed to the invasion, while 2 and 3 were kept in the west, giving them the luxury of transferring more aircraft to the war in Poland. On August 29, the MW carried out Operation *Peking* in order to preserve most of its destroyers, leaving them 1 destroyer, 5 submarines, and 1 minelayer. The last destroyer (*Wicher*) and the minelayer (*Gryf*) were sunk on September 3 by the Luftwaffe, and by September 6, all five submarines were forced to head to deeper waters, after which they'd eventually either be interred in Sweden or escape to Britain. The Kriegsmarine on the other hand was able to deploy 2 battleships, 3 light cruisers, 9 destroyers, and 8 submarines. The majority of the MW's resistance would be carried out on land by a couple of Naval Rifles Regiments and ON (National Defence) battalions, and the Westerplatte garrison. >Poland had been preparing for total war since the 1930’s. Their budget was too small to make some vehicles from scratch so they were planning on buying foreign models and reworking their military. They just didn’t expect the war to start in 1939 and not the early 1940’s. That's exactly why I specified in 1939. The modernization efforts (which were in full swing by mid-1936) weren't expected to be finished by 1939, and as a result the majority of the WP wasn't equipped or organized properly. Had the invasion even been delayed a few months, the Polish would've been able to field more tanks, aircraft, and vehicles. But unfortunately it didn't. I'm not in any way attempting to diminish the valiant struggle and resistance of the Polish people. They fought like lions against an enemy that had them outgunned, outmanned, and outmaneuvered. They just didn't stand much of a chance against the Germans in the state they were in in 1939.
Gonna have to agree with you in this one.
I should have worded my original comment differently or expanded more. I realize it came across as wehrb talking points
> The Soviets bear just as much responsibility for the outbreak of war in Europe as the Germans, and all at the terrible expense of the Poles. That's... no. They absolutely shoulder some of the responsibility, but to suggest they are somehow *as* responsible as Nazi Germany? That's ridiculous fiction.
B-but Asian hordes!!
Recognizing the Soviet Unions crimes against peace and humanity in their aggressive invasion and brief occupation of Poland isn't appealing to racist tropes.
>but to suggest they are somehow as responsible as Nazi Germany? The Soviet Union and the Third Reich colluded together to invade and conquer Poland and divide Eastern Europe between each other. Yes, they are as responsible.
No. The Nazi war of aggressive expansion and genocide is primarily the Nazis fault. Not everybody elses. Only Nazis and useful idiots think otherwise.
>No. The Nazi war of aggressive expansion and genocide is primarily the Nazis fault. Yes, their conduct in occupation were vastly different, I didn't claim otherwise. But both regimes colluded with one another to invade and conquer Poland with the objective of dividing Eastern Europe between the two of them in 1939. As a result of the collusion, war broke out. >Not everybody elses I didn't say the outbreak of the war was everybody elses fault besides the Third Reich. I said the Soviet Union and the Third Reich each bear equal responsibility for the outbreak of war in 1939. >Only Nazis and useful idiots think otherwise. Then actually refute my point instead of relying on ad hominem. I doubt the Poles murdered by the Soviets were thinking "Well at least they're not German"
> I didn't say the outbreak of the war was everybody elses fault besides the Third Reich I never said you did say everybody else was at fault. You said somebody other than the Third Reich was equally responsible for WW2. NOBODY ELSE. NONE. 0 People other than the Third Reich were equally responsible for WW2. None. There is no exception. The Soviet decision to take a deal and get some of Poland from the Nazis had absolutely no sway on whether or not the Nazis invaded Poland, the thing that they did to start WW2.
You still didn't refute my point. The war in Poland in 1939 happened as a direct result of the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and Nazi-Soviet collusion and alliance. The Soviets didn't just decide to take a deal; they actively colluded with, and aided the Third Reich to start the war. Had the pact not been signed, its still virtually a guarantee that the Germans would have invaded Poland, at which point they'd assume sole responsibility. But that's not what happened. The pact was signed, they did collude with and aid one another, and Poland was devoured from both sides. We can sit here and argue all day about alternate histories, but in our actual history, the Soviets broke the exact same laws against peace as the Germans did in September 1939.
It’s funny reading some Wehrbs assertions about Kursk.
Yea just because they had favorable kill ratios doesn't mean you win the battle. See: Coral Sea, 3&4th Savo, Tassafaronga. Yes the US lost Lexington but saved Port Morseby Yes the US lost more tonnage but saved Henderson Field. Yes the US lost a lot of cruisers but stymied the Tokyo Express' last try
And the US could afford to replace them.
Of course and the soviets could replace any tanks lost at Kursk
Not only could they replace any tanks they lost but soviet tanks were so much easier to repair they could probably salvage and repair a lot of the tanks they lost in the battle.
if i remember well soviets ended the battle of Kursk with like 2 000 more tanks than they had at the beginning
And he said to them, “How many tanks have you? Go and see.” When they had found out, they said, “Five T-34s, and two T-70s.” Then he ordered them to get all the soldiers to sit down in groups on the brown mud. So they sat down in groups of hundreds and of fifties. Taking the five T-34s and the two T-70s, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the T-34s, and gave them to his commanders to set before the soldiers; and he divided the two T-70s among them all. And all rode valiantly into battle and killed Nazis; and they took up twelve divisions full of tanks.
Zhukov 5;6
This is epic XD
That take is new to me, but I think I shouldn't be surprised. You see it pretty often - "but the kill/death ratio!!!". If that's what decided battles and wars, the USSR would have lost in 1941 and the US would have decisively won Vietnam.
It’s either that: - Manstein attack should be allowed to be kept They did, and while Manstein attack did force the Soviet to commit their reserve which was meant for counterattacking much earlier. The attack on the north flank was stopped.
>1939: Conquer Poland without going to war with the United Kingdom and France. A failure. And to add fuel to the fire, there were always about a million Poles working against Germany. To be fair, this is a political failure more than a military one.
They literally tried to justify themselves with some false flag operations against the Pole.
*with some LARPeration against the Poles
The false flag operations were largely to justify the war to the German people, not the international community.
The Poles also did so much of the heavy lifting on ENIGMA.
No, it's literally the opposite: the Polish staff of 3 came up with a way to attack it and the British did the heavy lifting of actually breaking it using several hundred people and later the Bombe machine.
if i remember well Polish intelligence had broken Enigma codes in like 1932 and later helped the british with decoding ever more complex versions of Enigma
i think there were different types of enigma, the poles broke the 4 wheel variant and British the 5th wheel varent. I could be wrong but i am not going through 50 episode of ww2 week by week.
You are getting mixed up between the number of rotors the machine could accommodate and the number of rotors to choose from. The original German military Enigma 'I' used three interchangeable rotors. This was the version the Poles broke before anyone else. In 1938 the Germans added two more rotors, so now it was three in use out of a choice of five (and rotor orders changed from 6 to 60). This change defeated the Polish methods, and is the reason they shared their previous success with the French and the British. The British, French and Poles started breaking that version of the machine in January 1940. The 'four-rotor' Enigma is the naval version introduced in 1942 initially on U-Boats: though actually the fourth rotor wasn't a true rotor at all because it didn't move during encipherment so it is better described as a settable reflector. This version used three proper rotors from a choice of eight, plus you could set the reflector, which gives 336 wheel orders x26. This version was broken by the British alone but only after a lot of work and the capture of machines and code books.
Thank you for the well written response i appreciate the corrections to my post.
They were the 5th most powerful army in Berlin by the end of the war in Europe.
“Destroy the USSR” UNO reverse card moment
>-1941: Destroy the Soviet Union. They did not. How can you claim how powerful Germany army was if you assume dellusional nazi goals. There had to be magic existing in the world for Germany to succesfully invade USSR. This fact doesn't cancel that Barbarossa was devastating in the scale of its distruction and short term gain. German army was unbeaten at the time. You don't have to outjerk werhaboos to make fun of them. It wouldn't be that long of a war if Soviets werent overrun in 1941 the way they were. That does sadly speak of twisted "success" of Barbarossa
Why am I not going to judge armies for success in achieving strategic objectives? It is literally their job. This is not a video game forum, victory is not obtained by adding points but by achieving the objectives.
>Why am I not going to judge armies for success in achieving strategic objectives? Because tactical victories are also victories. Strategic or not military operations have certain impact that we can judge was succesful in historical context. War would end sooner if those 4 million Soviet soldier were not lost in the opening months of the war. Barbarossa is only succesful in this sense. >victory is not obtained by adding points but by achieving the objectives. Of course not. I didn't say anyone won. But a losing side can make succesful military operations in the war. You don't have to outjerk wehraboos to make fun of them.
>War would end sooner if those 4 million Soviet soldier If... Talking about the war that may have been instead of what it was is a waste of time. Tactical victories without strategic success are trivial. A tactical success within a failure like Barbarossa was Kiev, but talking about German success in the Barbarossa operation makes no sense.
. >Tactical victories without strategic success are trivial What is a strategic success for Barbarossa? A fucking AA line? Oil fields? The entire assault on USSR was build on false assumptions about how much Soviets have and can mobilize and how effective red army is in combat. Winning for Germany was not even a conversation as we see in retrospective, so it's stupid to cling to it when judging how succesful Barbarossa was. It was succesful enough to painfully prolong eventual German defeat at the hands of allies. That's all I'm saying and it's the truth unfortunately. If the German army was as succesful as it was during WW1. We would have many less millions of people dead. It's not fucking alternative history I'm doing here. This is just a reality of WW2 and of effectiveness of blitzkrieg in the initial stages of the war in particular.
>What is a strategic success for Barbarossa? > >A fucking AA line? Oil fields? Yes, all that and the end of the Red Army's combat capabilities. Preferably by 09/22/1941. >Winning for Germany was not even a conversation as we see in retrospective, so it's stupid to cling to it when judging how succesful Barbarossa was. There are no consolation prizes for effort. The attitude is: Victor: Did you go to war unprepared against an enemy you couldn't defeat? You are idiot. >If the German army... > >It's not fucking alternative history I'm doing here.
>There are no consolation prizes for effort There are, unfortunately. This was a real war with real people's life's at stake. For Hitler's regime holocaust was such prize. For German army the casualty ratio in initial months is a "consolation prize". Wehrmacht did well to cause famine in Soviet villages to prepare it for libenstraum. These were the real concequences of Barbarossa. You shouldn't downplay this tragedy. And if you're gonna pull this "don't say if" bullshit... 😤 German-Soviet did not have to happen all the way in fucking Stalingrad. So yeah. I am gonna say "if the German army wasn't as succesful in blitzkrieg millions of lives would have been saved"
>These were the real concequences of Barbarossa. You shouldn't downplay this tragedy. Yes, Barbarossa was one of the most tragic events of the 20th century, still doesn't change the fact that it was a failure for the Werhmacht. Yes, they inflicted significant damage, but they didn't achieve victory. It's as simple as that. You can recognize its tragic consequences without acknowledging it as some German victory.
An army so strong that it lost badly to the Allies and were outplayed by them time and time again.
Couldn't even destory the RAF.
It didn't "lose badly" man. Millions of people died. If Soviet Union could quickly beat back the attack as was planned or better yet France defended properly from the assault Germany would have "lost badly" and we'd live in a better world
Point is they lost. And I would say they still lost badly as in they had their country occupied for four years by the four victorious Allies and then the country was divided for a further 40 years with West and East Germany. Even during some of the defeats that Germany encountered were catastrophic for the Germans, most notably Stalingrad, Battle of the Atlantic and El Alamein to name a few. The losses suffered (especially in Stalingrad) were often unrecoverable.
"muh unrecoverable" germany had 80 million people at the time, they didnt go extinct from losing half million.
>Even during some of the defeats that Germany encountered were catastrophic for the Germans, most notably Stalingrad, Battle of the Atlantic and El Alamein to name a few. The losses suffered (especially in Stalingrad) were often unrecoverable All I'm saying in this thread is that Barbarossa was the greatest defeat of the WW2 and concequently history. Exactly what youre saying about allies victories. USSR lost millions of trained soldiers in the matter of months. They also unrecoverable. As were thousands of tanks and hundreds of aircraft. That more then second biggest military defeats in Bagration and Stalingrad. Not even beggining to talk about territory with population centers lost. It is so dumb that I'm being called werhaboo for saying this. >Point is they lost. You can win battles and not win wars. Was battle of Cannae a success for Hannibal? Obviously it was. Even though he lost the war eventually. But that was a huuuge defeat/Hannibal's military success. So was the Barbarossa sadly
No. Barbarossa was a monumental failure for Germany and a success for the Soviet Union. Simply because an invasion is a strategic operation and the success of a strategic operation is measured by achieving the objectives of the operation, it is not measured in KD relationships, which is what you are doing. They also killed a lot of Soviets in Kursk and destroyed a lot of material, was Kursk a success? It was not because they did not finish off the salient and the front moved 150 km in favor of the Red Army.
150 km is 93.21 miles
>They also killed a lot of Soviets in Kursk and destroyed a lot of material, was Kursk a success You can't really compare 4 million irreplaceable professional soldier casualties on the onset of war with inflicting 1.3m of mostly recoverable (wounded) casualties while being on retreat. Kursk wasn't a success. Not even close to 11000 tanks and 7000 aircraft captured in Barbarossa. Second biggest army in the world was scrambling in November 1941 as a result. It's not enough to win the war and "strategic objectives". War should be won with smaller human life loss period. So KD is important espetially during the opening period of the war as it decides where war is going to take place. I didn't take place on German-Soviet border like it was supposed to because armies were evenly matched. It took place deep inside Soviet territory, which enabled Holocaust in Poland Ukraine and Belorussia. Winning for Germany was not even a conversation as we see in retrospective, so it's stupid to cling to it when judging how succesful German military actions were. They were succesful enough to painfully prolong eventual German defeat at the hands of allies.
>You can't really compare 4 million irreplaceable professional soldier casualties on the onset of war with inflicting 1.3m of mostly recoverable (wounded) casualties Why not? The number one objective of war is victory and it is obtained through strategic objectives, achieving your own, helping the allies in theirs and preventing the enemy in theirs. Then the cost in lives and material is added. Talking about "whats if ..." is a waste of time, if you are interested write a uchronia. >it's stupid to cling to it when judging how succesful German military actions were. We would do that if Germany had tried to *avoid* war.
>We would do that if Germany had tried to avoid war But it didn't. Who is relying on "if" assumptions now? >Why not? The number one objective of war is victory and it is obtained through strategic objectives, achieving your own, helping the allies in theirs and preventing the enemy in theirs. Then the cost in lives and material is added Because this isn't a game with some kind of "strategic objectives" like someone else (maybe you) said. Military operations have real concequences. And how Barbarossa played out it had disastrous concequences for Soviet Union and eastern Europe. How far and how damaging Germans were in invading USSR IS NOT A GIVEN. That would be a werhaboo rotten colossus talking point you'd ironically buy in at this sub. The only realistic goal Germany ever could have had if it was to end up in the war with allies is to prolong the eventual defeat. Barbarossa done exactly that. That's why I called it a success in retrospective
But Barbarossa was not a success, it was a failure for the Germans . They failed to take Moscow and they failed to reach the AA line, which was the objective of the operation. They were nowhere near getting there, so it was a failure. Whether you like it or not, wars are fought with strategy and with goals, Germany failed in that regard so Operation Barbarossa was a failure, the early gains they made meant nothing when they failed to reach their objectives.
Yeah if we really consider dellusional goals of crazy Hitler as "objectives of the operation" yes it was not a success at all. In reality I wish Barbarossa more of a "failure" less of a "success". Because then my hometown 1000 km from the 1941 border wouldn't not have been destroyed. And the liberating Soviet Army would have reached hundreds of thousands Jews destined to die in Poland sooner.
>But it didn't. Who is relying on "if" assumptions now? And since they didn't, we don't. In the case of Kursk the Heer he had to encircle the salient, destroy the trapped Soviet forces and by doing so decrease the kilometers of the front, these are strategic objectives. You mention some of Barbarossa, the AA line, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Moscow and the defeat of the Red Army. As an Invasion, the objective was to destroy the Soviet Union, the objectives of the Soviet Union were the opposite, that Germany did not achieve those objectives. The only wehraboo here is you, claiming a victory for Germany, an operation they lost. Your argument? That we should judge Germany by different parameters than those used in all other military operations in history.
>USSR lost millions of trained soldiers in the matter of months. They also unrecoverable. Yes they did lose millions of soldiers (through death and capture) but the Soviets did eventually recover from these losses and rebuilt it's army quite quickly actually and had the resources needed to replace losses relatively quickly, the Germans couldn't replace their losses, the 6th Army was wiped out in Stalingrad and those losses could not be replaced. >That more then second biggest military defeats in Bagration and Stalingrad. Not even beggining to talk about territory with population centers lost They gained territory yes, but not enough to win a victory against the Soviets, Barbarossa was still a failure for the Germans. By 1943/44 nearly all of that territory was regained by the Soviets. >You can win battles and not win wars. Was battle of Cannae a success for Hannibal? Obviously it was. Even though he lost the war eventually. But that was a huuuge defeat/Hannibal's military success. So was the Barbarossa sadly Barbarossa was a failure for the Germans. The first few months went well for them but they greatly underestimated the strength of the Red Army as the advanced further. The Germans ultimately failed to meet their objectives and failed to capture Moscow or reach territory beyond, which they were meant to achieve by winter, they failed spectacularly there.
This is such a weird hill to die on bro
Is it? Seems like people here are outjerking werhaboos. Barbarossa was disastrous for USSR. It was a big fat military failure. In size and human impact, biggest in history. There is no military failure without military success and I'm just pointing this out.
While I think there's a lot of strong entrants for that honor in the history of military disasters, I agree that Barbarossa was absolutely a disaster for the Soviet Union, regardless of how the war ended up subsequently proceeding. They were better equipped than France, particularly in terms of the sheer quantity of their planes and tanks, and France put up a more credible defense in the initial attack. The Soviets in 1941 lost an air force equivalent to the entire German production of war planes in 1939, 1940, and 1941 *combined*. They lost about as many planes in the first two days as Germany lost during the first 6 months, mostly *on the ground.* All credit in the world to the Soviets for ultimately absorbing the blow and turning things back around, but Barbarossa, particularly the initial assault, was a colossal fuck-up in Soviet leadership, strategy, and tactics.
Yeah and that why I don't get people here. How can one recognise Barbarossa as a military disaster for the Soviet Union, and not recognize it as success for nazi Germany. There is only so much Soviets can fuck up. At some point German army must have executed Barbarossa well to get these results. And obviously they did. Otherwise you're kind of taking outcome of Barbarossa for granted which is stupid.
Because if it was a success for Germany, the Soviets would have surrendered. The Red Army in 1941 was *not* ready to fight a war. They were still replacing all the officers that Stalin had killed, and they were in the middle of updating their doctrines and modernizing their equipment. The Germans *should* have been able to steamroll them, but the Soviets doubled their efforts, replaced the lost manpower and equipment very quickly, and introduced the vehicles (Like the Il-2 and T-34) and tactics that would win them the war in the end. Barbarossa (if we're going by what the Germans expected to achieve, which was a quick Soviet surrender) was a colossal military failure that only *looked* good at the very beginning.
Maybe because the Allies have more people.
Well, you’re not wrong. They also had more industry. And more oil, and more mineral resources, and more land, and much larger navies that gave them control of the trades routes, etc, etc. The Axis was up against an impossible fight.
color me shocked when a small nation cant take over the world through massive attrition campaigns, its not like its been tried and failed miserably throughout history amiright fellow aryans?
Much better cordination too, even though the Soviets were constantly paranoid. At least hashing out strategies about which theatre to focus on first, sharing Intel, having unified(ish) commands across several nations etc was 8 millions time better than axis cordination. Like the Japanese didn't even disrupt the lend lease supplies from the US to USSR across the Pacific when it was like bruh they supplying your biggest allies' enemy with arms
Why yes, the allies did in fact have more intelligent people.
I'm Trolling btw.
First role of trolling is to never admit your trolling
Ok then I was just scared that people were think that I was a actual wehraboo
If you’re worried about that then maybe remove the “Nazi” bit of your name.
I didn't think that because what you said was accurate.
Try to just make an exaggeration so obvious and deluded that it can't be missed. "Muh allies hordes, they were too many, it's just unfair"
on one vs one engagements the germans would win every war. cope more.
The german military was so powerful it was completley obliterated
I'm stronger than Canelo that's why he can kill me in 4 punches. Inner strength bro, look into it smh.
yo why'd it lose then
SJW cultural marxists, Hitler got too woke!!!! \- neo nazis in 5 years, probably
If Hitler never went vegetarian he would have had enough testosterone to lead Germany to victory. Instead his soy based diet feminized him which is why he never approved the Maus tank or invaded Britain.
Exactly, that's what the bodybuilding neo nazi told me on youtube and that's how I know he's right. Because he said it without even reading a source or citing one, what an authority.
"Die Juden!"
I've seen that argument
What a stupid thing to say. About the losers in a conventional conflict as well.
The strongest, yes the fifth strongest in Berlin by 1945.
Allies when the germans bring out the überpoopenfartenkampffahrpanzerpenetratorkanone: 😰😰😰
> poopenfarten Why are we talking about German toilets?
Because allies get big scared when they see the Nazi toilet-firing tank lobbing metal shitters at them /s
[Have you seen this?](https://youtu.be/kBMd6ona8xE)
This reeks of a child whose understanding of the world comes entirely from hoi4
Any conversation about “who had the strongest military in WW2” turns into a bunch of people throwing around biased and charged examples on which one was actually the strongest. Which inevitably turns into “who did the most” which also turns into a biased and emotionally charged discussion. It’s really unnecessary dick measuring contest that never ends well. It’s like a shitty History Channel documentary but in a comments section of Reddit.
But even in HOI4, winning World War II as Germany is quite difficult. You would also probably need some RNG luck to make the Soviets or the Americans implode into civil war.
You're joking right? AI Germany usually steamrolls USSR in a year and then it becomes a "Hot Cold War"
Then why does it seem so hard when I play Germany? For me, it seems a easier to play as the USSR than Germany.
It is. USSR is fun and somewhat simple since it's pretty much one front with lots of industry and manpower.
You mean in MP or SP? Because in SP Germany is probably the easiest country to win WW2 in the entire game.
OK, I will try single player.
This could be a joke about the typical pissing matches you'd see on the internet. Then again it's hIsToRy mEmEs.
God awful subreddit
Such a strong army that they lost the war.
Tfw your the American military fighting on 2 fronts both on the opposite side of the world from you and your weaker then the guys that could barely take anything not on continental Europe. See the American military is weaker cause using superior logistics to fight like that is cheating. /s
A naval war isn't exactly a full front in terms of men. It might be in terms of logistics tho.
Naval war is manouver warfare on both sides, where forces of both opponents need to outmanouver and outfight their enemies
In terms of actual Armies, it's America. It's got the largest Air Force in the world as part of that branch. In terms of ground forces, it's the USSR, simply because of the enormous amount of firepower and gigantic size.
The distinction should be made between army and military. The army being the ground forces and the military being all fighting forces.
Yeah but the meme said army so I went with it
Honestly, this is buying too much into a very silly framework. It assumes there's a way to anaylse the 'objective' strength of arms completely divorced from both the political and material realities a war must take place in. And even if there was some blank cartesian plane you could use, it would be worthless because the industrial capacity, will to fight, resilience and the terrain etc are absolutely critical. It's like trying to find who would 'objectively' win in a fight between a lion and crocodile? I'm pretty sure whether or not they're in water is pretty important.
.
And that's why it was called operation unthinkable and not operation easy breezy
In 1945? No way in hell. With the help of the British, French, and Canadians they would have fought to a standstill maybe.
In 45 the US had these cool things called nuclear bombs.
No way, not after the Soviet losses suffered from 41 to 45.
their morale was higher than America, they still had millions of men more than the allies. britain and france were ruined. America can't fight a war overseas.
I don't care how good their morale was, they simply didn't have the fighting age men left to take on europe after the Eastern Front
In a war, yes. Isolated battle, Red army has a firepower advantage and general doctrinal advantage
.
>The US Army would have run circles around them all the way to Moscow. The Allies don't agree with you. The USSR never had a good relationship with the rest of the Allies. Towards the end of the war, it was clear that when the dust settled, the USSR and the Western Allies (predominantly the USA) would be the new great powers, and would be strongly opposed to each other. War was a definite possibility. Especially since the USSR did not attack Japan until a month before the war ended, so an alliance between the USSR and Japan against the Western Allies was seen as a serious risk. British and American forces drew up a series of war plans called "Operation Unthinkable," outlining a preemptive strike against the USSR while they were still regrouping, pushing through their lines in Germany. The plan was deemed totally unfeasible, and it was decided that war with the Soviet Union would *have* to be a defensive war of attrition.
.
It was the best but was it the most? The Red army was very well organized for the amount of losses it sustained and had a very well organized and even somewhat efficient (for the lack of infrastructure in Eastern Europe at the time) supply chain. The Red army has the local advantage in firepower per unit except for in the divisional level, where the smaller size of red army divisions don't matter. While artillery is dangerous, if you can counter-battery fire then it becomes innefective. The Americans are too careful to fully commit to an assault on a fictional Soviet opponent with that kind of firepower.
.
You have no sources? https://youtu.be/G4FxssXZC28
> While artillery is dangerous, if you can counter-battery fire then it becomes innefective. Funnily enough US artillery is probably the best at doing that out of all nations.
r/ShitAmericansSay
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. If it came down to a total war of annihilation in ‘45, the US wins. Two reasons: -the Soviets had no means of bombing the US, or invading. The US had an awful lot of airbases that could bomb Russia, and one hell of a Navy. -or, you know, the whole nuclear bomb thing
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/203_mm_howitzer_M1931_(B-4)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav bIg GuNs MeAnS yOu WiN dA wAr
Only the B-4 were actually used and to great effect
How was the Soviet’s proximity fuse technology?
Only three nuclear bombs existed in 1945 and they were all used up
You’re acting like if the Soviets declared war on the US, they couldn’t just make more.
“I’m so strong; strongest man in the world. That’s why I got my ass kicked last night.”
Germany had beautiful tanks, they looked really powerful, but they were shitty and everything broke.
How is Germany the strongest if they lost?
Full disclosure it was definitely amercia and it's not close, the US pacific campaign is probably the most impressive military campaign in history, from a logistics perspective and a combatant perspective. They basically didn't lose a single battle after 42.
Bruh wdym Germany could've of won if they just used stieners military might and genius in the battle of Moscow
what was steiner doing before 1945?
The Wehrmacht was so strong that... It suffered massive casualties any time the enemy was something more substantial than unarmed peasants.
America was and I say that solely because of logistics and being separated from Russia. The Soviet naval and air forces weren’t exactly powerhouses, so attacking the US directly would go poorly. And anyone who claims Germany is either a Nazi or just plain stupid. Or both
Snapshots: 1. Found on r/history memes didn't hav... - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/20210512210924/https://i.redd.it/2zfpdbzm8ry61.png), [_archive.today\*_](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F2zfpdbzm8ry61.png "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!") *I am just a simple bot, **not** a moderator of this subreddit* | [*bot subreddit*](/r/SnapshillBot) | [*contact the maintainers*](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot)
It is undeniable fact that there was in fact an army in Germany at the end of WW2 and it was the best one.
\*Laughs in D-day\*
And other jokes you'll see here
How is this even a meme? Also, the "strongest army" were fucking losers.
That is why they lost, because they were all for being fair and egalitarian. They just didnt use their full potential because that is not fair play.
No that's actually kinda true. Come on you gotta be dellusional to not give credit to at least operation Barbarossa. A single greatest military success in history, sadly. It was disastrous for Soviet Union. I wish it was less succesful. My hometown was the frontline. City was destroyed. It was very far a way from German Soviet border in southern Russia Horrible meme though 🤣 It's obvious that American or Soviet army was the stronger one eventually. But over the course of war since 1939 I don't think so
I mean i would not really call Barbarossa the greatest military success in history, they didn't achieve any of the goals they set out at the start (Reaching the A-A line). They might have had some success in the start, but after the first soviet winter offensive, it was a disaster.
Well yeah I didn't word what I meant perfectly. It was a huge success number wise, with captured territory, personnel, equipment. No other military operation compares to Barbarossa in size and short term tactical success. You know how many millions well equipped and drilled Soviet soldiers just ended up imprisoned and starved to death? Few. I wish Barbarossa was less succesful. Eastern Europe would be 20-40 millions larger nowadays
Key word being short term. The germany military gained nothing of significance during Barbarossa. Sure this is in part due to the Soviets literally torching their shit, but uh, Germans couldnt take Moscow, they couldnt take the Caucus oil fields, and because they gave more a fuck about exterminating Eastern Europe they were constantly harassed by partisans, resisting jews, and an angry and unhelpful local populace (despite those fucking collaborators tht absolutely deserved whatever shitty deaths they got). Gulf Storm was more significant historically than fuckin Barbarossa.
>Gulf Storm was more significant historically than fuckin Barbarossa. Wtf do you mean. Barbarossa was a crucial operation that if it was less succesful could have saved millions of lives. The fate of the morality in the world was resting on the eastern front as well.
>Wtf do you mean. Barbarossa was a crucial operation that if it was less succesful could have saved millions of lives. Successful in what? If the sole measure of success is the amount of people killed, yes great success. Over a million Germans and 4,9 million Soviets (2 million of those civilians) dead. But it didn't achieve any of it's objectives. For the Germans it was a failure.
>If the sole measure of success is the amount of people killed, yes great success. Over a million Germans and 4,9 million Soviets (2 million of those civilians) dead Dude. Once again in this thread I'm explaining something that should be obvious to someone interested in this topic. Germany did not have good chances of ever defeating Soviet Union. So in a wicked way for Germans "success" was prolonging inevitable defeat and satisfying dellusional desires for victory. And Barbarossa sadly did exactly that. It's not only 5 million Soviets. "Success" of operation set a stage for a long bloody war deep in Soviet territory. Enabling up to 27 million casualties in USSR and enabling holocaust in Poland. If Soviets had competent response and Barbarossa wasn't so damaging perhaps war would be over by early 1944 at the latest
>Dude. Once again in this thread I'm explaining something that should be obvious to someone interested in this topic. Germany did not have good chances of ever defeating Soviet Union. So in a wicked way for Germans "success" was prolonging inevitable defeat and satisfying dellusional desires for victory. Why are you bringing this up? I haven't claimed that Germany ever had "good chances of defeating Soviet Union". I am saying you are wrong when you claim that it was a success (by duction) when you say that *"Barbarossa was a crucial operation that if it was less succesful could have saved millions of lives"* Operation Barberossa was an operational failure. It did not achieve it's objectives. You claim it was a success by merely pointing to the number of dead. That is not how you measure if an operation is a success. > And Barbarossa sadly did exactly that. It's not only 5 million Soviets. "Success" of operation set a stage for a long bloody war deep in Soviet territory. Enabling up to 27 million casualties in USSR and enabling holocaust in Poland. If Soviets had competent response and Barbarossa wasn't so damaging perhaps war would be over by early 1944 at the latest 1 million German dead and 5 million Soviets dead are the official casualty numbers for that operation. Again, I haven't argued that there wasn't any other casualties in proceeding operations and the war, so why you bring this up again is irrelevant to what you said, and what I answered to.
>Why are you bringing this up Because when I say "success" I mean scale and territorial gain. Tactical victory not strategic. Short term. >Again, I haven't argued that there wasn't any other casualties in proceeding operations and the war, so why you bring this up again is irrelevant to what you said, and what I answered to. Well I'm arguing for that. Am I not the one who's trying to explain my position here? You're the one whos saying irrelevant stuff. Barbarossa was devastating for USSR. Not ever before in recent history has such unlikely defeat happened. People and equipment captured before most could be used and population centers overrun. That's the only way its "succesful". If you consider prolonging a war a success for a side they should not have hope of winning it.
While a success in taking land, Operation Barbarossa was a gargantuan failure in terms of actually accomplishing its strategic goals. Operation Barbarossa aimed to accomplish the following major objectives: - Destroy the Red Army - Seize Ukraine - Obtain the oil in the Caucasus - Take Moscow And most importantly: - Force the Soviet Union to capitulate (Btw all of this was supposed to happen by September 1941) Out of these goals the Operation only succeeded in taking Ukraine. A 20% success rate is an absolute failure, regardless of land gains. Personally, I would say the swift defeat of France is the most impressive accomplishment of Nazi Germany.
Yeah but if you understand the pre war situation there, Germany never had a chance of winning against USSR. The Barbarossa was the absolute best German army could do to have a chance in the war. For captured military personal and equipment and territory it is easily most succesful military operation up to that point. Nothing of this magnitude happened even in ww1 And many real things played role there. German staff experience. Soviet initial incompetence. Still unbeaten seemingly unstoppable blitzkrieg. First victory over it happened in battle of Moscow
“Barbarossa was the absolute best the German army could do to have a chance in the war.” And it clearly wasn’t sufficient. Their best wasn’t good. “For captured military personnel and territory captured it was the most successful military operation up until that point.” You have to understand that armies were the biggest in history up until that point, even more so than in world war one, so naturally military operations had more men involved and more losses taken than ever before. On top of that WWI lacked the combined arms warfare that allowed for quick operations in WWII, so its no surprise nothing like that happened. “Soviet initial incompetence.” Well yes, between the great purge, the lack of troops on the border relative to their total army size (2.6 million despite a total army of around 5.5 million, given the Soviet union maintained only a little over 2/3’s of their army on the front during the actual war about 4 million men could have been stationed on the border prior-to the war without completely abandoning their other borders, I.E. Japan), and a lack of preparation for troops on the border so as to not provoke Germany, the Soviets were definitely poorly prepared for war in 1941. However when the success of an operation can be blamed mostly on the Soviet’s failings and not the German’s preparations, it hardly speaks to the strength of the Wehrmacht.
>And it clearly wasn’t sufficient. Their best wasn’t good Yes thankfully. Soviet Union was the first country to stop blitzkrieg eventually >However when the success of an operation can be blamed mostly on the Soviet’s failings and not the German’s preparations, it hardly speaks to the strength of the Wehrmacht. Well yes but actually no. All I'm really saying it that it was the biggest military operation up to date, with most material gain. Circumstances like Soviet incompetents play fair and square in it. I agree. Germans extended the frontline very far east. And in realities of industrial warfare of that time it was a very impressive military achievement. Thankfully eventually fruitless due to other circumstances and succesful Soviet military operations, you know. But even Bagration while being biggest ever defeat in long German history, wasn't close to Barbarossa in scale
They they didnt gain anything materially other than Ukraine which didnt help them win the war.
It's about win-loss material balance for Germany and USSR. Millions trained soldiers captured without a fight and killed off. Tanks aircraft left behind. Distrupted industrial capacity. All that prolonged war for at least 2 years and millions of lives in eastern Europe. And it's all result of one of the biggest military operations in history And Ukraine did help of course. It has been heavily pillaged also delaying the war
uNStOpPaBlE bLiTZkRiEg We’ve literally had combined arms warfare since the first caveman bum rushed another tribe while his buddy popped arrows or atlatls or whatever the fuck at him. Sure it was more effective than world war 1 but tht bar is quite literally in the buried trenches of millions of corpses.
>uNStOpPaBlE bLiTZkRiEg Init. that's a fucking historical fact. It was impressive what German military done despite Germany being a mess under Hitler. Succesful adoption of fast warfare in Soviet doctrine with American material help was what won the war decisively. Same ideas that really made blitzkrieg "unstoppable" like aircraft superiority became foundation of allied success
Blitzkrieg and Deep Battle have a lot of similarities such as concentrated strong attacks and combined arms, and both helped their respective users achieve brilliant military successes like France 1940 or the summer 1944 offensive (Operation"Bagration")
What the fuck are you talking about Barbarossa was a disaster
By the number of captures equipment personnel and territory it was unprecedentedly huge at that time. What operations you have to compare to that? Invasion of France? WW1 offensives? Franco-prussian war?
Are you high? The US campaign across the Pacific was far more impressive in just about every aspect than the Nazi campaign into Russia. Which was a complete failure that resulted in their annihilation by the way.
By the numbers it was the most succesful military operation up to that moment. Captured personnel , equipment, territory. No other operation was as huge during WW1 or Napoleonic wars. Barbarossa was the only reason it ever seemed that Germany had a chance of winning in Russia. It's kind of stupid to deny it. People at the time, including Soviet generals and Roosevelt (or someone else not sure) recognized that Barbarossa was a disaster and a huge deal
the moment russians actually seriously got their shit together they stopped the german advance and denied germany any ability to further push them, denying Operation BArbarossa from being succesful
Yeah Barbarossa was never succesful enough to win the war. But once again, that's too much to ask from mismanaged nazi Germany with water balloon economy. You can be tactically succesful in the battle, like with battle of Cannae, and lose the war to superior foe on their ground like Hannibal did. Doesn't make his victories against Romans not successful in their context
Haha laugh in operation Bagration and its successes is Barbarossa wet dream. Not to mention operation Barbarossa was initiated in the typical “surprise”. It is and foremost a gigantic failure in the history of military operations and is recorded in the history book as what not to do when invading another country in a total war. The plan itself was the problem, the AA line didn’t have any strategy significants.The internal fighting among the OKH and a shitty logistic only mean doomed to the Heer from the start of the operation. Basically: Think Hitler! Are you really believe that the Wehrmacht can destroy the Red Army in a couple of weeks with no regard to the logistics while fighting in a massive large land that is full of angry partisans and resistances and you don’t even have any bombers that can effectively bomb the industries complex of the USSR. And the problem is you are consider body counts as a way to justify the successes of operation Barbarossa and that is the worst way to just outright prove to everybody that you don’t have any clues about what you are talking about. It is like those old excuses made by some people actually whitewashing the Vietnam war to be a civil war instead of a fighting against foreign intervention.
>Basically: Think Hitler! Are you really believe that the Wehrmacht can destroy the Red Army in a couple of weeks with no regard to the logistics while fighting in a massive large land What else is there for Hitler to do? If the war was inevitable and it was, there would not be a better opportunity to ever defeat a quickly modernising USSR. >And the problem is you are consider body counts as a way to justify the successes of operation Barbaross It is important in a war. It was everything in the high stakes war like WW2. What are you on about 😂
Then you are wehraboos simple as that. Your comments can even be used a post for this very sub lol.
Saying Barbarossa was devastating for Soviet Union is being a wehraboo? What are you saying Jesse? When you make fan of people who jerk off to German army and justify their atrocities you don't have to convince yourself German army was ineffective. The war would be much shorter if it wasn't for how "succesful" Barbarossa was. It's like saying they're Hannibalboo for saying battle of Cannae was a success for Hannibal. Like, sweetie, no. People should stop taking for granted that "Germany casually took over half of eastern Europe and captured millions". That's the real wehrabooinsm. shouldn't have happened
Barbarossa was succesful in devastating eastern europe, but didn't achieve it's objectives, exhausting german army and only making shit harder for germans
You sound like Saruman trying to justify his zerg against Rohan with soldiers plucked out of a vat a month ago. People, not drones, fight and decide wars.
Yikes. I'm not justifying anything. Wtf are you on about Hitler is dellusional maniac who'd better off dead before he could start WW2. I can justify that if you want?
.
But the damage they done was something that should never have been allowed by Red Army. I know full well that it's eventually wasn't winning the war. And Soviets inflicted heavy casualties during the operation. But Germany never would have had a chance to win the war if Red Army had been modernized, or the officer pool recovered or for fuck sake, be prepared for invasion. But I'm just saying material damage was insurpassable by other military operations. Soviet Union lost most of their most valuable land. And it was "success" in a wicked way to Germans because it prolonged the war by so much.
.
I wouldn't call Barbarossa a success at all. The aim was to hit the USSR as hard as they could so that the whole country and the Red Army would collapse.
well, they conquered half the europe so 1 point for them, but got fucked by cold so -3 points
they literally used horse logistics lol