Holocaust is a lie. There is no final solution. The war was lost for Germany when they needlessly bombed English peasants, tried to take over the ruble that was Stalingrad and lost 1 million men in the cold fighting over nothing instead of destroying the place and moving onto the the oil fields to the south, sent his best general, Rummel, on a futile quest in North Africa where he would never have enough oil to get to Iraq, the supply trucks used all their contents getting to the front line.
Yet people still love Hitler even though he didn't mass murder jews, instead put them in work camps with swimming pools. When he made horrible military decisions on all three fronts, so much so that his own military tried to kill him multiple times and the Allies stopped trying to kill him. Explain why Hitler as so great when he let the rich jews leave Germany with their money and the holocaust is a lie.
the cold fighting over nothing instead of destroying the place and moving onto the the oil fields to the south
The oil fields could not be taken before Stalingrad was taken. It was a major rail hub and a Volga transport choke point. By taking the city the SU could not supply it's souther armies nor receive supplies via Persia.
sent his best general, Rummel, on a futile quest in North Africa where he would never have enough oil to get to Iraq, the supply trucks used all their contents getting to the front line.
Germany had plenty of fuel at that point. The problem was they had no port that could handle the logistics of an armored corps. Simply put, the Germans lost the war because they could not get their supplies fast enough and in large enough quantities to their front line troops. The Soviet and North African infrastructure were simply too undeveloped.
The oil fields could not be taken before Stalingrad was taken. It was a major rail hub and a Volga transport choke point. By taking the city the SU could not supply it's southern armies nor receive supplies via Persia.
Yes they could have. The bombed the railroads into oblivion before troops ever set foot in the city. There were no railroads left. And the river freezes over in winter. They lost 1 million men there in the winter of 42-43 and retreated the rest of the war. Stalingrad was a war of attrition they could never win. SU lost 2-3 million men in Stalingrad and could have lost 1 million more and still won because of their superior numbers. They fought over ruble, everything of importance had been transferred east by the SU by the time the German bombers and artillery destroyed the what was left. There were no ports or factories or railroads anywhere near the city. None of the generals wanted to capture Stalingrad, only Hitler did.
Germany had plenty of fuel at that point. The problem was they had no port that could handle the logistics of an armored corps.
No they didn't. They were short on oil by the start of 1943. They only controlled so much of the Mediterranean Sea, that is why they didn't land supplies closer to the African front. They never had naval superiority in the majority of the Sea. If they had control it would easy enough to build temporary docks to transfer troops.
Yes they could have. The bombed the railroads into oblivion before troops ever set foot in the city. There were no railroads left.
And? Railroads are easy to fix, or re-divert. Do you know how power projection works? If they seized the city they would be able to interdict all transportation, if they didn't they could only take pot-shots at it. Hence why even overwhelming air supremacy the Allies were not able to break the German transportation and industry even until as late as 1945.
And the river freezes over in winter.
So? When it's not frozen over huge barges can travel up and down supplying the entire front. Without the city that route would have been cut off, forcing the Soviets to rely on the already stressed railways lines.
"But they could attack the barges at other points" you might say, but Stalingrad was the closest the Germans ever got to the Volga river, because Stalingrad is where the Volga river is the closest to the west (it flows like an arrow pointing towards Europe).
Stalingrad was a war of attrition they could never win.
Nonsense. The SU was losing 3 soldiers for every German soldier killed, while they only had 2x as much population (including Ukraine, which was in German hands). This is not even counting Germany's allies, Italy, Romania and Hungary. In a war of attrition Germany had the upper hand. By 1944 almost all new conscripts to the Soviet army came from Ukraine, and they were resorting to conscripting children as well.
They fought over ruble, everything of importance had been transferred east by the SU by the time the German bombers and artillery destroyed the what was left.
Simply not true. There were factories producing tanks in the city that literally rolled out of them firing at the enemy. Furthermore, a lot of factories were too big to transport. Almost all steel factories were left behind, which meant that SU had to rely on lend lease for a large chunk of it's steel industry.
None of the generals wanted to capture Stalingrad, only Hitler did.
This is just a bold faced lie. Every general knew that without Stalingrad there could be no southern push (they might have disagreed whether a souther push was better than attacking Moscow, but that's a different story). Why the fuck do you think they southern army group almost got cut off when Stalingrad fell? Exactly because of this.
Stalingrad was a vitally important staging area and logistic centre. There was nothing but flat steppe between Stalingrad and the southern army. Without the city the Soviets could launch a mobile counter offensive at will and the Germans simply could not stop them. Hence why the Soviets had to re-take the city instead of bypassing it and going for the souther army. The siege of Stalingrad happened because the city was vitally important for both sides.
There were no ports or factories or railroads anywhere near the city.
The city itself was vital due to it's position, not what was inside it. It was essentially a fort, it acted like a medieval castle. An army in medieval times could not advance until the castle was sieged, or risk it's supply lines being broken.
No they didn't. They were short on oil by the start of 1943.
Not really. They had enough fuel for military operations. They really started going short on fuel in 1944 when Romanian oilfields were conquered by the SU, after which they had to rely on coal conversion.
But we were talking about 1941-1942. In 1943 the Germans were in a slow retreat in North Africa and fuel was no longer a major issue. Especially not after operation Torch. The bigger issue was that the ports weren't large enough to allow a full retreat.
They only controlled so much of the Mediterranean Sea, that is why they didn't land supplies closer to the African front.
False. During the offensive all cargo went through Tobruk, which was damage during the siege. It was the only port that could allow such operations, but was still not large enough. Eventually the Germans started going deep into Egypt, and all supplies had to be transported from Tobruk by road to the front line, creating a huge bottleneck.
If they had control it would easy enough to build temporary docks to transfer troops.
Most of the losses the Italians suffered was around Malta, which is where the British were most active. After passing that point the Italians had the advantage and could send ships basically anywhere the Germans advanced, they just didn't have the resources to "build temporary docks". They couldn't even fully repair the dock in Tobruk.
You don't seem to appreciate just how stretched out they were. Even if they could build the docks they'd have to build new roads, which would require more workers, more resources, more docks, etc...
They are also easy to destroy again. And what were the railroads going to do when there is no production in Stalingrad?
When it's not frozen over huge barges can travel up and down supplying the entire front.
Except when the German planes destroy them. If they have oil.
Nonsense. The SU was losing 3 soldiers for every German soldier killed, while they only had 2x as much population
Uh.... then how did the SU when the war of attrition like they did? You just called what actually happened 'nonesense'.
Simply not true. There were factories producing tanks in the city that literally rolled out of them firing at the enemy.
Oh, you're just a liar. Fuck off shill.
In 1943 the Germans were in a slow retreat in North Africa and fuel was no longer a major issue.
Fuel was always an issue. Kill yourself you retarded lying shill.
It was essentially a fort, it acted like a medieval castle. An army in medieval times could not advance until the castle was sieged, or risk it's supply lines being broken.
They are also easy to destroy again. And what were the railroads going to do when there is no production in Stalingrad?
It's easier to repair them than it is for the enemy to destroy them. You can also re-divert them out of range from enemy bombs. The railroads weren't there to supply the city, but to supply the troops south of the city.
Except when the German planes destroy them. If they have oil.
Planes can't flay 24/7 and the Soviets had fighters of their own. If on the other hand you block the river you can completely shut down all transportation without losing a single pilot.
Uh.... then how did the SU when the war of attrition like they did? You just called what actually happened 'nonesense'.
They din't win the war of attrition. They won the war by entering Berlin. The reason why they were able to do that was because Germany was fighting a war on several fronts with limited resources and stretched logistics. I just told you the stats. Do tell me how the Soviet union could win a war of attrition when they lost 3 soldiers for every 1 German soldier, while they only had 2x as many men. Tell me how the math adds up here.
Oh, you're just a liar. Fuck off shill.
Lmao. Hitler actually diverted troops, the 4th Panzer Army, south away from Stalingrad, and General Franz Halder, his Chief of Staff, was against that. Look at that, a GENERAL wanted HITLER to allocate MORE troops to STALINGRAD. Let's see what you said.
"None of the generals wanted to capture Stalingrad"
Oh, either you're the shill or you're just retarded.
Fuel was always an issue. Kill yourself you retarded lying shill.
Lol. I actually spend a good deal researching this, tracking fuel shipments across Europe for use by JG units. Seems to me you're just frustrated by your general lack of knowledge.
Are you that retarded or a shill?
I'm trying to explain to you how power projection works. Essentially I'm dumbing it down for you, but it seems you're too dumb for it.
view the rest of the comments →
TeddyJackson ago
Holocaust is a lie. There is no final solution. The war was lost for Germany when they needlessly bombed English peasants, tried to take over the ruble that was Stalingrad and lost 1 million men in the cold fighting over nothing instead of destroying the place and moving onto the the oil fields to the south, sent his best general, Rummel, on a futile quest in North Africa where he would never have enough oil to get to Iraq, the supply trucks used all their contents getting to the front line.
Yet people still love Hitler even though he didn't mass murder jews, instead put them in work camps with swimming pools. When he made horrible military decisions on all three fronts, so much so that his own military tried to kill him multiple times and the Allies stopped trying to kill him. Explain why Hitler as so great when he let the rich jews leave Germany with their money and the holocaust is a lie.
Shekelstein6M ago
The oil fields could not be taken before Stalingrad was taken. It was a major rail hub and a Volga transport choke point. By taking the city the SU could not supply it's souther armies nor receive supplies via Persia.
Germany had plenty of fuel at that point. The problem was they had no port that could handle the logistics of an armored corps. Simply put, the Germans lost the war because they could not get their supplies fast enough and in large enough quantities to their front line troops. The Soviet and North African infrastructure were simply too undeveloped.
TeddyJackson ago
Yes they could have. The bombed the railroads into oblivion before troops ever set foot in the city. There were no railroads left. And the river freezes over in winter. They lost 1 million men there in the winter of 42-43 and retreated the rest of the war. Stalingrad was a war of attrition they could never win. SU lost 2-3 million men in Stalingrad and could have lost 1 million more and still won because of their superior numbers. They fought over ruble, everything of importance had been transferred east by the SU by the time the German bombers and artillery destroyed the what was left. There were no ports or factories or railroads anywhere near the city. None of the generals wanted to capture Stalingrad, only Hitler did.
No they didn't. They were short on oil by the start of 1943. They only controlled so much of the Mediterranean Sea, that is why they didn't land supplies closer to the African front. They never had naval superiority in the majority of the Sea. If they had control it would easy enough to build temporary docks to transfer troops.
Shekelstein6M ago
And? Railroads are easy to fix, or re-divert. Do you know how power projection works? If they seized the city they would be able to interdict all transportation, if they didn't they could only take pot-shots at it. Hence why even overwhelming air supremacy the Allies were not able to break the German transportation and industry even until as late as 1945.
So? When it's not frozen over huge barges can travel up and down supplying the entire front. Without the city that route would have been cut off, forcing the Soviets to rely on the already stressed railways lines.
"But they could attack the barges at other points" you might say, but Stalingrad was the closest the Germans ever got to the Volga river, because Stalingrad is where the Volga river is the closest to the west (it flows like an arrow pointing towards Europe).
Nonsense. The SU was losing 3 soldiers for every German soldier killed, while they only had 2x as much population (including Ukraine, which was in German hands). This is not even counting Germany's allies, Italy, Romania and Hungary. In a war of attrition Germany had the upper hand. By 1944 almost all new conscripts to the Soviet army came from Ukraine, and they were resorting to conscripting children as well.
Simply not true. There were factories producing tanks in the city that literally rolled out of them firing at the enemy. Furthermore, a lot of factories were too big to transport. Almost all steel factories were left behind, which meant that SU had to rely on lend lease for a large chunk of it's steel industry.
This is just a bold faced lie. Every general knew that without Stalingrad there could be no southern push (they might have disagreed whether a souther push was better than attacking Moscow, but that's a different story). Why the fuck do you think they southern army group almost got cut off when Stalingrad fell? Exactly because of this.
Stalingrad was a vitally important staging area and logistic centre. There was nothing but flat steppe between Stalingrad and the southern army. Without the city the Soviets could launch a mobile counter offensive at will and the Germans simply could not stop them. Hence why the Soviets had to re-take the city instead of bypassing it and going for the souther army. The siege of Stalingrad happened because the city was vitally important for both sides.
The city itself was vital due to it's position, not what was inside it. It was essentially a fort, it acted like a medieval castle. An army in medieval times could not advance until the castle was sieged, or risk it's supply lines being broken.
Not really. They had enough fuel for military operations. They really started going short on fuel in 1944 when Romanian oilfields were conquered by the SU, after which they had to rely on coal conversion.
But we were talking about 1941-1942. In 1943 the Germans were in a slow retreat in North Africa and fuel was no longer a major issue. Especially not after operation Torch. The bigger issue was that the ports weren't large enough to allow a full retreat.
False. During the offensive all cargo went through Tobruk, which was damage during the siege. It was the only port that could allow such operations, but was still not large enough. Eventually the Germans started going deep into Egypt, and all supplies had to be transported from Tobruk by road to the front line, creating a huge bottleneck.
Most of the losses the Italians suffered was around Malta, which is where the British were most active. After passing that point the Italians had the advantage and could send ships basically anywhere the Germans advanced, they just didn't have the resources to "build temporary docks". They couldn't even fully repair the dock in Tobruk.
You don't seem to appreciate just how stretched out they were. Even if they could build the docks they'd have to build new roads, which would require more workers, more resources, more docks, etc...
TeddyJackson ago
They are also easy to destroy again. And what were the railroads going to do when there is no production in Stalingrad?
Except when the German planes destroy them. If they have oil.
Uh.... then how did the SU when the war of attrition like they did? You just called what actually happened 'nonesense'.
Oh, you're just a liar. Fuck off shill.
Fuel was always an issue. Kill yourself you retarded lying shill.
Are you that retarded or a shill?
Shekelstein6M ago
It's easier to repair them than it is for the enemy to destroy them. You can also re-divert them out of range from enemy bombs. The railroads weren't there to supply the city, but to supply the troops south of the city.
Planes can't flay 24/7 and the Soviets had fighters of their own. If on the other hand you block the river you can completely shut down all transportation without losing a single pilot.
They din't win the war of attrition. They won the war by entering Berlin. The reason why they were able to do that was because Germany was fighting a war on several fronts with limited resources and stretched logistics. I just told you the stats. Do tell me how the Soviet union could win a war of attrition when they lost 3 soldiers for every 1 German soldier, while they only had 2x as many men. Tell me how the math adds up here.
Lmao. Hitler actually diverted troops, the 4th Panzer Army, south away from Stalingrad, and General Franz Halder, his Chief of Staff, was against that. Look at that, a GENERAL wanted HITLER to allocate MORE troops to STALINGRAD. Let's see what you said.
"None of the generals wanted to capture Stalingrad"
Oh, either you're the shill or you're just retarded.
Lol. I actually spend a good deal researching this, tracking fuel shipments across Europe for use by JG units. Seems to me you're just frustrated by your general lack of knowledge.
I'm trying to explain to you how power projection works. Essentially I'm dumbing it down for you, but it seems you're too dumb for it.