Did not realise his mistake...saw his arse eventually in Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad.
Bonaparte did the same thing to his peril.
Russia has played a trump card in history and we owe them a lot of respect...I just wonder what would have happened without them.
Grim news but good result later.
The world would have been a different place today if Dolfie was not so foolish.
A blessing in disguise.
Then war between Germany and Russia relates to a difference in personalities of the leaders involved - both were so-called socialists with the besotted idea to rule the world, Millions of innocent people died because of that insanity,
Attacks in Russia has always ended in disasters for the attackers and one would have learned from history and avoid it like a plague - but the current politicians are more interested in the Cancel Culture than to learn from history what should be avoided at all costs
Russian resilience coupled with the catalystic effect of frozen winters is what won both wars especially with Napoleon (and not so much with Germany) as it was Russian soldiers ability and heart that defeated the best armies in the world... Napoleon was the best Field Marshal, Hilter was a fool but both were defeated by the 2 above mentioned factors.
No country in their right mind would take on Russia today...the core ability of heart and resilience would edge even the equality of fire power of which USA, China and combined forces of the rest of the world share.
" Did not realise his mistake...saw his arse eventually in Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad."
When it comes to the invasion of Russia, Operation Barbarossa, the German generals are just as much to blame for its failure as Hitler, Operation Barbarossa was the baby of both Hitler and his generals and it was a bad plan.
"Bonaparte did the same thing to his peril."
There is some similarities but there is also a number of differences between the two invasions.
"Russia has played a trump card in history and we owe them a lot of respect...I just wonder what would have happened without them."
In respect to WW2 its a difficult question to answer. If there was no Eastern Front, the British Empire and American's would have been facing millions more troops, thousands more tanks, and artillery pieces, the full strength of the Luftwaffe not about a third of it. North African and the places like Malta would have fallen to the Axis and it difficult to see a successful the Allies successfully invading Europe unless both America and Britain substantially increased the men and resources they could throw at it and where willing to sacrifice millions of men. Conversely Germany would still not be in position to invade Great Britain, let alone even remotely threaten the Americans and even if the Russian's had continue to supply them oil they would be 1943 be really struggling with an oil shortage.
Had Russia fallen and Germany got its oil supply by 1942, they would have sustained substantial casualties but their oil shortage is solved putting the Germans in a better position to fight off an Allied invasion of Europe. Could possibly give them more time to get the ME 262 jet fighting into production and ward off the Allied bomber offensive. Still at this point I can't see the German's having the means to invade the UK and the American's will get nukes first.
Successful invasion of Russia and the Germans warding off an Allied invasion of Europe possibly means Germany could remain masters of continental Europe and Western Russia, and millions more dying due to the holocaust. A bad outcome for the world. The Germans may have just ended up getting nuked either.
"Then war between Germany and Russia relates to a difference in personalities of the leaders involved - both were so-called socialists with the besotted idea to rule the world, Millions of innocent people died because of that insanity, "
Neither Stalin or Hitler liked each other but to say the war was due to a difference in personalities is none sense. Hitler was really a socialist in name only. He did want Germany to dominate the world but didn't expect to live long enough to see it. Stalin wanted to see Communism exported round the world and the USSR become the defacto leader of the communist states but never had any plans to invade and occupy continental Europe like Hitler did.
"Attacks in Russia has always ended in disasters for the attackers and
one would have learned from history and avoid it like a plague - but
the current politicians are more interested in the Cancel Culture than
to learn from history what should be avoided at all costs"
Except when they don't. For example Germany beating Russia in WWI. Or Russia losing a war to Poland in between the two world wars.
Why on earth are you going on about cancel culture, what on earth has that to do with WWII and are you suggesting their is politicians out their currently considering an invasion of Russia?
"Russian resilience coupled with the catalystic effect of frozen winters is what won both wars especially with Napoleon and not so much with Germany as it Russian soldiers ability and heart and defeated the best armies in the world... Napoleon was the best Field Marshal, Hilter was a fool but both were defeated by the 2 mentioned factors."
Yes to Russian resilience, no to the cold. In the case of Napoleon, his army sustained most of its losses before the Russia winter had kicked in. Likewise German causalities and its logistical system collapsing where the decisive factors in 1941 and this had already happened before the Russia winter kicked in. In both cases the Russian winter served to make a disastrous situation even worse but the disaster had already occured. Napoleon was not doubt a great military commander, one if not the best of all time, but historians where not so impressed with his leadership in Russia was not considered on the level of his other campaigns. Hitler was no where near Napoleons level, but I wouldn't call him a fool, he was actually above average intelligence. He did make a lot of mistakes but so did his generals.
The cancel culture relates to not leaning from historical mistakes because history is distorted and cancelled out, No culture survives that kind of idiocy.
There another lesson top be learnt from history at present. In the 1920's Germany was in chaos and in the end it was so scared of communists running some cities and attempting to gain power that Hindenberg was elected as President with the specific assignment to restore the monarchy The crown was offered to Wilhelm II's son - but his father forced him not to accept it, In the subsequent election there was a deadlock in the Reichstag and the royalists and major capitalists saw Hitler as more acceptable as a socialist and the latter was also some of the wealthiest Americans. For the rest the capitalists supported the socialists as partners in Government.]
That was nothing new,, The Germans and American capitalists heled and funded the Communists in their takeover of Russia in 1917. And that co-operation continued suhsequently until Reagan, Kohl and Thatcher put a stop to it.
The Government in China is at present a dictatorship if capitalists calling themselves Communists, - bit in fact still a dictatorship. The wealthiest Americans lve it and invested heavily in China. The same people wants a socialist Government in the USA and wikk ejance the policies of the Globalists who want to see world Dictatorship, Once the USA are captured democracy in Europe with s dictatorship cbsed iobn the Chibnese presen Government,
Think about it carefully = the world wuill be turned into a dictatorshhiup siiber than you may think,
'
Would it? Who won? The bankers et al who funded both sides ot the war, who played everyone for saps got what they wanted. Hitler was merely the poster boy, and the sacrificial lamb.
The Germans would probably have won a one front war against Russia or the Western allies. A two front war, with supply lines stretching all the way to Moscow….as well as engaging in North Africa required too many resources.
Nonetheless…..and German attack two months earlier could have captured Moscow. In the end it all hinged on the Battle of Kursk. A battle the full German army would have won.
But anybody taking Russia had to hold Russia, and given it’s vast size that is an impossible task. The Russian offensive is what broke Germany. D day was a vicious battle, but if the full German army was in Normandy and not partially outside Stalingrad it would have been impossible.
With the rockets Germany had the delivery system to win the war if they had the bomb.
This from History Extra makes some good points:
The plan was to advance to what was called the ‘AA line’, from Archangel to Astrakhan. This would have taken them past Moscow and more or less beyond the line of the Volga. This is why, when it came to the battle of Stalingrad, many German troops felt that if they could only capture the city and get to the Volga they would have won the war.
The plan was that any Soviet troops who had survived after the great battles in the early part of Barbarossa would simply be a rump and could be kept under control by bombing. Meanwhile, the conquered areas of Russia and Ukraine would be opened up for German settlement and colonisation. According to the Nazi Hunger Plan, the population of the major cities would have been starved to death. They reckoned on 35 million being killed.
The whole project depended on a rapid advance to the ‘AA line’ and, above all, the destruction of the Red Army through vast battles of encirclement. Some battles of this kind did indeed take place. Kiev, for example, was one of the largest battles in world history in terms of the number of prisoners taken.
In late October 1941, in a moment of panic, Stalin approached the Bulgarian ambassador Stamenov and told him that he thought Moscow was going to be captured and that everything would fall to pieces. But Stamenov responded: “You are crazy. Even if you withdraw to the Urals, you will win in the end.” This to me illustrates a key reason why Operation Barbarossa was probably not going to work. The sheer size of the country meant that the Wehrmacht and their Romanian and Hungarian allies never had enough troops for the occupation and conquest of such a huge area.
Secondly, Hitler had failed to learn a lesson from the Japanese assault on China, where another highly mechanised and technically superior force attacked a country with a vast landmass. It showed that you can certainly win in the beginning but the shock and awe of cruelty, which Hitler also used against the Soviet Union, ends up provoking as much resistance as it does panic and chaos. Hitler never took this into account. “Kick in the door and the whole structure will come tumbling down,” was the phrase he kept using, but he completely underestimated the patriotism of most Soviet people, their feelings of outrage and determination to fight on.
Hitler was actually very conscious of Napoleon. One of the reasons he insisted on attacking Leningrad was because he was reluctant to follow Napoleon’s main route to Moscow. That helped account for the delay in reaching Moscow. Some have argued that if Hitler had ignored Leningrad he could have captured Moscow.
His refusal to allow withdrawals, particularly from the Kiev encirclement, meant the loss of hundreds of thousands of men. It was a ‘stand or die’ order every time and there was very little flexibility. It was only really in the last stage of the retreat to Moscow that Stalin was allowing more flexibility, and it was a good thing that he did because it preserved enough troops to save the city.
There was no chance of any overthrow by popular revolt or anything like that. In fact, there was very little criticism because nobody really knew what was happening and the anger of the people at that particular stage was entirely focused on the Germans and their treasonous breaking of the Nazi-Soviet pact. The main risk to Stalin was a palace coup and there was a famous moment where some of the leading Soviets went to the dacha in which Stalin had gone into a complete funk. He saw them arriving and thought they had come to arrest him, but he soon realised that they were scared too and they persuaded him that he had to carry on.
There’s no doubt that the scale and depth of that winter was important. It was a particularly cold winter, with temperatures sometimes going down to -40°C and the trouble was that the Germans were simply not equipped for it in terms of clothing or weapons. The German machine guns, for example, were often freezing solid and they would have to piss on them to try to warm them up. The German panzers had very narrow tracks, which couldn’t cope with the snow, while the Soviet T-34 tanks had much wider tracks.
Even before the winter, the Germans had already been slowed down by the autumn muds but the frost made things worse. They had to light fires under the engines of their aircraft at night purely to get their motors going in the morning.
A good account Stav. Germany however did invade Russia on mid summer day (yesterday) ie Solstice in 1941...I surmise he thought his armies, tanks and supporting attack aircrafts and bombers could complete the task before the harsh winter weather set in and this indeed is a factor...I've been in Moscow in winter when -30 degrees is the temperature. It's painful just to experience let alone fight an intensive battle and St Petersburg (Leningrad) is colder but Volgagrad (Stalingrad) is further south and not as severe but severe enough in winter.
Napoleon's army faced the cold too and the "scorched earth" tactic which meant no food...armies cannot fight with no food. Stalingrad too...people were starving to death, eating rotten corpes of dead horses and some accounts of cannibalism...absolutely terrible.
My wifes great uncle was one of the survivors of Stalingrad, he only passed away some +/- 10 years ago. An incredible man, I met him briefly and although he could not speak any English and my Russian is a joke...managed a brief chat...but he never spoke about it and no one dared to offend.
Any way Stav, thanks for your interesting post.
...and today they the British violate Russian waters in Black Sea...skating on very thin ice...such things are totally irresponsible.
https://kp-platform.cdnvideo.ru/kp/mp4/54/839556_1624456121.mp4
I think that there is one thing stemming from WW2 that effected SA and the political situation subsequent to the War, The SA soldiers were treated like dirt by the English commanders in North Africa and was basically gunfodder for the English who exposed them and rrued to proptect the English soldiers.
They came back from the War describing the English Generals as filth and admiring Field Marshall Rommel. They believed that their SA commanding officer - General Dan Pienaar - was murdered by the English,.
On their return to SA they did not get any benefits to help them like the British and American soldiers did. Instead of help South Africans the then SA Government gave a grant of 80 million pounds - an enormous amount of money at the time - in gold and wool to the English Government, The farmers were forced to sell the wool at ridiculous prices that sent many into bankruptcy and serious financial difficulties,
That caused the Governing party at the time to lose the 1948 election and the longer term 2/ consequences of the SA history of the past 80 years was the direct result of WW2.
Not so sure if this applied to all SA soldiers and officers Mike but airmen like Sailor Malan, DSO & Bar, DFC & Bar who led Squadron 74 Royal Airforce in Battle of Britain. Not only was he a true Afrikaaner from Huguenot descent but a highly respected hero who distinguished him in that tough endeavour.
I think Mike, like all of us you must be careful not to generalise.
SA soldiers, my dad was one were treated with respect...it might be that "the Ossewa Brandwag" and people like that useless John Vorster had hatred for "die Engelsman" but hatred has never done our country any good.
I've always liked the Afrikaaners and have found a lot of them have very balanced outlook towards the English...prejudice is a deceptive vision.
Winnie was a close friend and confider in "Oubaas". The two of them had great regard for one another.
Seb
I was just insulting SB - and please do not take my comments amiss. My best friends in the world are English speaking and I am indeed very fond of them.
The SA army in North Africa were the problem - the fact is that of them came from Afrikaans families and they were not enthusiastic about fighting under English commanders anyway,
The fact is iot was the after\the war when things went wrong. Maybe it was the attitude of General Pienaar that caused problems. According t Brigadier Hatshorn his standard remark when eh got instructions from the English Generals he would say "Voertsek General". .
I mentioned the neglect by Government as to returning soldiers - they were much treated like the USA is doing with soldiers returning from the ME. Huige numbers of them became unemployed and even live in slums. It did have en impact in the 1938 election.
As to the wool issue - the Government in 1947 paid farmers 9 pennies a pound for wool and send the wool to England. In 1951 that price was a pound a pound and the farmers were back in business. I was about 6 years old and my father had to reduce his sheep flock from about 700 to less than 200 to try and survive,, He could not get the flock much bigger when the wool boom hit the market in 1950 and sheep could not be bought on the market anymore. As a kid I went to collect wool that was left on the fence by sheep - it was incredible as to what happened.
I am not hating anybody - my grandparennts on my fathers side did. I can still remember when we one day went to visit my Great Grandfather on my mothers side, There was a huge framed photo in the sitting room and I asked him whether it was his photo - his response was no - it was General Smuts' photo. They looked like they were identical twins.
My grandfather on my mothers side inherited the farm Uitkyk and sold the farm in 1933 to Frans Malherbe - the grandfather of the present Springbok prop. My parents were great friends of the Malherbe's and Frans' father and I are still very good friends. His grandfather made a fortune by marrying an extremely rich heiress from the Odendaal family and my mother was related to the Odendaals as well.
By the way the southernmost battle in the Boer War took place on hills between Riverdale and Still Bay - the English regiment suffered many casualties and two Boers were wounded,. The were treated by a Dr de Vos, He whispered to them not to worry - they were amongst friends. One of them was eventually sent to Bermuda as a prisoner of war. The local community colleccted 40 pounds which they gave him to buy clothes and have money when he needs something.. Anyway the Boers were moving towards meeting with general Smuts in the Boland and their next stop was at Uitkyk where they were treated with a braai and given provisions. Anyway that is a bit of Riversdale history. .
. .
Talk about invading territorial waters…..I was on the bridge of a South African navy frigate, when we spotted over 20 Russian trawlers inside SWA territorial waters. When we altered course to intercept they spotted us and steamed West.
But we cut off one of them. At which point they did the exercise you might have seen in Ice Station Zebra…..’operation harmless’. The women came out on deck to hang washing, the men waived and eventually for some reason they dumped fish and swarms of sea birds arrived.
What were these Russians doing…. unclear we never boarded….the prevailing view was they were sending arms ashore to the terrorists. Whatever, the Russians are past masters at invading territorial waters.