War in Ukraine

[McAhuna]

You are so smart you are the only one here thinking that my avatar isn't sarcasm. Colombo you ain't.

So your persona on here is a joke?

What a curious thing to do

 

[Spindle]

So your persona on here is a joke?

What a curious thing to do

You seem to be a troubled individual what with your constant character assassination attempts. Can't you argue your points? It's very "BBS" behaviour.

 

[Stirlingsays]

True. You ask an average German who beat them in the war and they will say the Americans and the Soviets.

It was mostly the Soviets but the Americans shortened the war....probably by about a year.

Soviets killed 4 out of 5 Germans.

That shocked me when I found out that statistic......But I was brought up on one eyed propaganda about the war like the rest of us.

In a way I wish I could go back to it.

Russia lost far more people than Germany....Germany's military was just better, but like Ukraine they were worn down by sheer numbers and the Soviet production capacity (with allied help).

Hitler's miscalculation (well German military command as well) lost them the war.

Stalin was willing to thrown his tens of millions at Germany, while Germany's army is drawing from a massively smaller population of around eighty million....they invaded with a bit less than four million.

The Germans inflicted around 4-5 times more military deaths on the Soviets than they suffered but essentially they were over-run by manpower and the Soviet's successful relocation of its military production.....it's so vast that resource hubs were available further east.

As with the war in Ukraine, Russia could sustain the kind of losses that Ukraine can't.....it's attritional. Germany had the better military but they couldn't cope with losing say the million troops they lost 1941-42, whereas even much larger losses couldn't stop Russia.

The womb matters.....demographics is destiny.

 

[silvertop]

It was mostly the Soviets but the Americans shortened the war....probably by about a year.

Soviets killed 4 out of 5 Germans.

That shocked me when I found out that statistic......But I was brought up on one eyed propaganda about the war like the rest of us.

In a way I wish I could go back to it.

Russia lost far more people than Germany....Germany's military was just better, but like Ukraine they were worn down by sheer numbers and the Soviet production capacity (with allied help).

Hitler's miscalculation (well German military command as well) lost them the war.

Stalin was willing to thrown his tens of millions at Germany, while Germany's army is drawing from a massively smaller population of around eighty million....they invaded with a bit less than four million.

The Germans inflicted around 4-5 times more military deaths on the Soviets than they suffered but essentially they were over-run by manpower and the Soviet's successful relocation of its military production.....it's so vast that resource hubs were available further east.

As with the war in Ukraine, Russia could sustain the kind of losses that Ukraine can't.....it's attritional. Germany had the better military but they couldn't cope with losing say the million troops they lost 1941-42, whereas even much larger losses couldn't stop Russia.

The womb matters.....demographics is destiny.

It was sheer numbers and national size that beat them. But also colossal mismanagement, largely from the very top.

Two examples.

Firstly, drunk with success in the west and absolutely certain of an easy victory, Hitler was certain Barbarossa would take no more than 4 months at the very most. So the troops were accordingly equipped for a summer win and an early autumn mopping-up. When the winter inevitably hit, supply lines were hampered, advances stalled and troops (who had not been supplied with cold weather kit) literally froze to death. Napoleon had taught them nothing.

Secondly, NAZI ideology treated all Slavs as inferior and worthy only of despotic subjugation. Populations from the Baltic states to Ukraine to the central Asian nations would have happily embraced German dependency in place of Soviet rule. They would not only have made taking those nations as easy as falling off a log, but would have handed over enormous enthusiastic manpower and other resources leaving Russia alone. The Germans could have sat back and let the oppressed people of the USSR take on the heavy lifting. Instead, they burned, looted, murdered and replaced autocrat with autocrat.

Their defeat was inevitable.

 

[McAhuna]

It was sheer numbers and national size that beat them. But also colossal mismanagement, largely from the very top.

Two examples.

Firstly, drunk with success in the west and absolutely certain of an easy victory, Hitler was certain Barbarossa would take no more than 4 months at the very most. So the troops were accordingly equipped for a summer win and an early autumn mopping-up. When the winter inevitably hit, supply lines were hampered, advances stalled and troops (who had not been supplied with cold weather kit) literally froze to death. Napoleon had taught them nothing.

Secondly, NAZI ideology treated all Slavs as inferior and worthy only of despotic subjugation. Populations from the Baltic states to Ukraine to the central Asian nations would have happily embraced German dependency in place of Soviet rule. They would not only have made taking those nations as easy as falling off a log, but would have handed over enormous enthusiastic manpower and other resources leaving Russia alone. The Germans could have sat back and let the oppressed people of the USSR take on the heavy lifting. Instead, they burned, looted, murdered and replaced autocrat with autocrat.

Their defeat was inevitable.

They did make Latvian SS units, etc. (Pedantic perhaps, but the Baltic nations are not Slavic)
And even slavic Ukrainian SS units too
But you are right, the wise thing to do would have been to restore Estonia, Latvian, Lithuanian, etc independence and make puppet supporter states.
Weirdly they and already successfully done this with Croatia and Slovakia.

 

[Stirlingsays]

It was sheer numbers and national size that beat them. But also colossal mismanagement, largely from the very top.

Two examples.

Firstly, drunk with success in the west and absolutely certain of an easy victory, Hitler was certain Barbarossa would take no more than 4 months at the very most. So the troops were accordingly equipped for a summer win and an early autumn mopping-up. When the winter inevitably hit, supply lines were hampered, advances stalled and troops (who had not been supplied with cold weather kit) literally froze to death. Napoleon had taught them nothing.

Secondly, NAZI ideology treated all Slavs as inferior and worthy only of despotic subjugation. Populations from the Baltic states to Ukraine to the central Asian nations would have happily embraced German dependency in place of Soviet rule. They would not only have made taking those nations as easy as falling off a log, but would have handed over enormous enthusiastic manpower and other resources leaving Russia alone. The Germans could have sat back and let the oppressed people of the USSR take on the heavy lifting. Instead, they burned, looted, murdered and replaced autocrat with autocrat.

Their defeat was inevitable.

I wouldn't say it was inevitable but I'd largely agree with all your analysis.

It was certainly a fatal miscalculation for the reasons you give.

Hitler grew arrogant and even went against his early observations of never fighting on two fronts.....he bet it all on red....Personally I suspect he feared his failing health meant he wouldn't see his utopian dreams of an expanded Germany in the east.

Hitler had assumed that Stalin wouldn't be able to get the numbers to fight for him that his regime did (many did desert and many changed sides, but nothing like what was required).......Hitler's attitude surprises me because Stalin was every bit as ruthless as he was....well more so if that's possible.

There are lots of nasty lessons on human nature that both world wars teach us....which in the mainstream is only really focused upon when it comes to the holocaust.

 

[McAhuna]

There are lots of nasty lessons on human nature that both world wars teach us....which in the mainstream is only really focused upon when it comes to the holocaust.

I'd say it was worse than that. The mainstream are only focused on one aspect of the holocaust, I think we can all guess which aspect.

Vast numbers of Slavs, Gypsies, Mentally-ill, handicapped and homosexuals died in concentration camps as well.

My relative was actually a concentration camp survivor.
Imprisoned because his relative was active in the Czech resistance and linked to the Heydrich assassination. That was all the connection they needed.

 

[Stirlingsays]

They did make Latvian SS units, etc. (Pedantic perhaps, but the Baltic nations are not Slavic)
And even slavic Ukrainian SS units too
But you are right, the wise thing to do would have been to restore Estonia, Latvian, Lithuanian, etc independence and make puppet supporter states.
Weirdly they and already successfully done this with Croatia and Slovakia.

Their attitude towards these nations ended up shooting themselves in the foot. Better treatment would have probably won over many more recruits.

The weird obsession with killing Jews and others they didn't like was another self imposed resource problem. They should have had more of a Persian mindset rather than the Mongol.

 

[McAhuna]

It was sheer numbers and national size that beat them. But also colossal mismanagement, largely from the very top.

Two examples.

Firstly, drunk with success in the west and absolutely certain of an easy victory, Hitler was certain Barbarossa would take no more than 4 months at the very most. So the troops were accordingly equipped for a summer win and an early autumn mopping-up. When the winter inevitably hit, supply lines were hampered, advances stalled and troops (who had not been supplied with cold weather kit) literally froze to death. Napoleon had taught them nothing.

Secondly, NAZI ideology treated all Slavs as inferior and worthy only of despotic subjugation. Populations from the Baltic states to Ukraine to the central Asian nations would have happily embraced German dependency in place of Soviet rule. They would not only have made taking those nations as easy as falling off a log, but would have handed over enormous enthusiastic manpower and other resources leaving Russia alone. The Germans could have sat back and let the oppressed people of the USSR take on the heavy lifting. Instead, they burned, looted, murdered and replaced autocrat with autocrat.

Their defeat was inevitable.

Back on topic, they did of course make a Ukraine state in WW2, the Nazi puppet Reichskommissariat Ukraine.
The root cause of much of today's problems.

​

 

[McAhuna]

Their attitude towards these nations ended up shooting themselves in the foot. Better treatment would have probably won over many more recruits.

The weird obsession with killing Jews and others they didn't like was another self imposed resource problem. They should have had more of a Persian mindset rather than the Mongol.

Yes, they should have aimed to create a European super-state, comprising subservient puppets with an illusion of national control, but really centrally controlled. They could have chosen somewhere central to control it from, somewhere like Strasbourg.
Oh wait...

 

[ASCPFC]

I spoke to a couple of Ukrainians about Zelensky recently. One was a big supporter. The other not so sure. He's mixed in popularity amongst Ukrainians as far as I can tell. He's certainly not unpopular.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I spoke to a couple of Ukrainians about Zelensky recently. One was a big supporter. The other not so sure. He's mixed in popularity amongst Ukrainians as far as I can tell. He's certainly not unpopular.

It's the Churchill thing......When fighting the war they back the leader, same for Russia.

However, I suspect the first chance they get at a vote to end the war they will take it.

I suspect that chance won't be given to them......a public humiliation won't be risked.