- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hot take on Germany’s invasion of the USSR
Posted on 2/23/25 at 8:54 pm to BuckyCheese
Posted on 2/23/25 at 8:54 pm to BuckyCheese
THIS.....The German may have taken Moscow but for Mussolinis misadventures in Greece.
Could they have held when Zhukov's inevitable counterattack would have struck in wintertime with the troops from Siberia?
Could they have held when Zhukov's inevitable counterattack would have struck in wintertime with the troops from Siberia?
1
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:04 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
Stalin was every bit the murderer Hitler was, and there are a lot of American young men dead and maimed, and trillions spent, because of the actions of the USSR in both proxy and The Cold Wars.
Yes Adolf Hitler was a monster., but IMO Stalin was worse.
Yes Adolf Hitler was a monster., but IMO Stalin was worse.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:07 pm to rmnldr
quote:You’re putting too much stock in the small surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine. What? The Allies weren’t waiting for battleships to sink before they focused on UBoats. The Scharnhorst wasn’t sunk until December 1943 which was well after the allies implemented their new UBoat tactics. Graf Spee was a cruiser and scuttled in 1939. The Gneisenau was scuttled in 1945 right before the end of the war.
Of course the Germans were terrified of the Royal Navy. They didn’t want to lose their battleships and lose the fleet-in-being. Once Bismarck, Graf Spee, Gneiseanu, and Scharnhorst were lost there was no longer a surface threat and the allies capitalized on it and subsequently destroyed the U-Boat fleet by being able to concentrate on ASW tactics and technology.
FYI, Pearl Harbor was 12/7/41. The whole world saw that the age of the battleship was over and the aircraft carrier took over.
The Germans were scared and hid their ships. The fact that the Germans had battleships had nothing to do with the Allies ability to counter the UBoats. Technology and tactics changed and the Allies learned as the war went on.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:11 pm to Penrod
quote:
There is no chance they push the allies out of North Africa. There are too many ports and the allies controlled the seas. There is even less chance that, after losing The Battle of Britain, and any chance of air parity, they could have invaded Britain. The allies had air superiority and sea superiority
Exactly what Bucky said about North Africa
Maybe so, but a UBoat blockade of the Brits would’ve forced them to surrender. No oil coming into Britain would mean no fuel for the RAF and no fuel for the Royal Navy. Then you’d have Germans in London.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:12 pm to sledgehammer
It wasn’t the lack of men or materials. It was the Russian winter.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:13 pm to sledgehammer
Say however, there had been a third more or even half again, the number of UBoat operating in the North Atlantic
Stalin likely gets nothing. Britain would have been very very hard pressed.
Stalin likely gets nothing. Britain would have been very very hard pressed.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:15 pm to geauxbrown
They shouldn’t have attacked Moscow or Stalingrad in winter when their men weren’t properly furnished for winter fighting. Prepare for the spring and summer offensive instead of wasting so much in those meat grinders.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:18 pm to sledgehammer
They didnt have clothing. they didnt even have proper lubricants for their vehicles to operate in those conditions A cluster..
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:22 pm to antibarner
quote:
Could they have held when Zhukov's inevitable counterattack would have struck in wintertime with the troops from Siberia?
Hard to say, but I'm sure the Germans would have much rather been in Moscow during the counterattack than freezing their pumpernickel off out on the Steppe.
Also, Moscow was central to the transportation links of Russia and had a lot of the state's manufacturing. Occupying that would have hindered supply for any Russians not directly east of the city.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:23 pm to rmnldr
quote:Its what they should’ve done instead of focusing on a surface fleet
can guarantee you that no one would have been downplaying the U-boat threat if Germany was sitting on over 200 by 1939.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:27 pm to sledgehammer
quote:
The Germans were scared and hid their ships.
Bismarck's sister ship the Tirpitz spent the vast majority of it's time sitting in a Norwegian fjord, never really being used. as moving it out would have been a death ride. Huge waste of resources.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:32 pm to sledgehammer
The problem with your premise is it assumes that Hitler actually wanted to win the war. What if instead Hitler was merely trying to do as much damage as possible in the time he had? Exterminating the Jews made no sense from a strategical standpoint and yet it was one of his highest priorities. He didn’t care about winning, he cared about manufacturing chaos.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:38 pm to spaghettioeauxs
Listen to Jordan Peterson, eh/?
I don't buy his premise.
I don't buy his premise.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:40 pm to jeffsdad
quote:
and need to be exterminated
Based on what they wrote, the plan appeared to be to expulsion, presumably whenever the war ended
This post was edited on 2/23/25 at 9:41 pm
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:40 pm to sledgehammer
Not sure you can have a “hot” take on a 100 y/o story.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:46 pm to spaghettioeauxs
quote:
He didn’t care about winning, he cared about manufacturing chaos.
In their words, they were fighting to save Europe
quote:
Exterminating the Jews made no sense from a strategical standpoint and yet it was one of his highest priorities
I don’t think they had any intention to exterminating them. If they did, there would be an extensive paper trial of documents and reports showing that
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:56 pm to sledgehammer
quote:Wouldn't work. U-boats were diesel with batteries, and could stay submerged 24-48 hrs at most. They didn't have good CO2 scrubbers. Blockades will take much longer to have a real effect. And the Royal Navy could refuel at ports outside of Britain; specifically in Portugal.
Maybe so, but a UBoat blockade of the Brits would’ve forced them to surrender. No oil coming into Britain would mean no fuel for the RAF and no fuel for the Royal Navy. Then you’d have Germans in London.
Wouldn't take the Brits long to figure out what the Germans were doing, and then it would be a slaughter when those U-boats resurface. And then you don't have those boats (or crews) anymore, to do more useful stuff like ambush ships unawares in the open seas.
If the Germans tried to stop the Royal Navy from refueling in Portugal, they'd have to go through Spain to do so. And doing that would put 2 neutral countries into the "fighting Germany" side... with Spain being a significant problem. Spain was probably more competent militarily than Italy, and REALLY would not have liked an invasion. They were worn down from their Civil War and wouldn't be an offensive threat, but they wouldn't have given up as France did to "preserve the countryside" or whatever. So that would have opened up a new front for Germany, when they couldn't afford it. We'd have been landing in the Iberian Peninsula years before D-Day.
What's more, attacking Spain and Franco might have made Mussolini a lot more skittish about the Germans.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 10:20 pm to sledgehammer
quote:
You’re putting too much stock in the small surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine. What?
It’s not me—it’s the Royal Navy that placed significant importance on it. I’m citing historical fact, not engaging in hypotheticals.
quote:
The Scharnhorst wasn’t sunk until December 1943 which was well after the allies implemented their new UBoat tactics. Graf Spee was a cruiser and scuttled in 1939. The Gneisenau was scuttled in 1945 right before the end of the war.
Gneisenau was effectively neutralized by 1942. The elimination of these surface threats allowed the Royal Navy to shift its focus to anti-submarine warfare. Resources that had been dedicated to countering the surface fleet could then be redirected toward defeating the U-boat menace.
There’s no question that the primary factor in overcoming the U-boats was the development of improved ASW technology and tactics. However, removing the Kriegsmarine’s surface threat freed up escorts, aircraft, and naval assets that were previously tied down in anti-surface warfare. This strategic shift was a critical factor in turning the tide of the Battle of the Atlantic.
quote:
The fact that the Germans had battleships had nothing to do with the Allies ability to counter the UBoats.
Yes, it absolutely did. I’ve explained this multiple times now—the Royal Navy’s entire naval strategy leading up to the war was shaped by the perceived threat of Germany’s surface fleet.
The lack of sufficient escort vessels and underdeveloped ASW technology at the outbreak of war was a direct result of Britain prioritizing fast capital ships to counter German surface raiders. The mere existence of the Kriegsmarine’s battleships forced the Royal Navy to allocate resources, planning, and production capacity toward a surface warfare doctrine rather than an escort-heavy, ASW-centric strategy from the outset.
Had the British known in advance that Germany would not be investing in capital ships, their entire naval build strategy would have been different, with far greater emphasis on escort vessels, convoy protection, and ASW development.
This isn’t conjecture—it’s historical fact.
This post was edited on 2/23/25 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 2/23/25 at 10:28 pm to sledgehammer
quote:
Its what they should’ve done instead of focusing on a surface fleet
You’re approaching history as if you can alter a nation’s naval and industrial strategy in isolation, without acknowledging the broader consequences such changes would have on the overall strategic landscape.
I’m here to explain why this hypothetical is flawed. You cannot simply replace battleships and heavy cruisers with 200 U-boats and expect that your primary adversary would remain oblivious. Your assumption rests on the notion that everything else about the war remains unchanged except for your modifications. However, if the British Admiralty had known that Germany was abandoning capital ship construction, they would have had no reason to authorize the construction of five fast battleships in 1936.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 10:41 pm to rmnldr
I agree, to a point
Britain was going to build those BBs, regardless, and for a number of reasons. In 1936, Nazi Germany was not the Royal Navy's biggest concern. They had worldwide obligations spread out globally. The Italian Regia Marina in the Mediterranean was an absolute threat with big gun BBs of its own. Japan has been building a modern, capable battle fleet that certainly threatened GB's interests in South Asia, Malaysia, and even the African continent.
Whether the nascent Kriegsmarine (in 1936 it was still more hypothetical than actual) focused on U-Boats or surface ships wasn't going to change the Royal Navy's construction plans to a great degree.
Britain was going to build those BBs, regardless, and for a number of reasons. In 1936, Nazi Germany was not the Royal Navy's biggest concern. They had worldwide obligations spread out globally. The Italian Regia Marina in the Mediterranean was an absolute threat with big gun BBs of its own. Japan has been building a modern, capable battle fleet that certainly threatened GB's interests in South Asia, Malaysia, and even the African continent.
Whether the nascent Kriegsmarine (in 1936 it was still more hypothetical than actual) focused on U-Boats or surface ships wasn't going to change the Royal Navy's construction plans to a great degree.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News