Wehrmacht vs Red army :Best WW2 eastern front animated.

[Metanoia]

Yes, but Russian environment began to take its toll, and the Wehrmacht were unable to replenish their ranks in the EAST since US set its foot in Europe and Africa to neutralize Axis powers. US also facilitated Soviet war-effort against the Wehrmacht (Lend-Lease Program).

This isn't to say that Soviets were inconsequential. They were willing to fight till the end and their courage had no peer.

Nevertheless, the Wehrmacht ended up fighting on several fronts while German homeland was being subjected to spirit-shattering bombing runs. This was too much pressure to cope with, and the outcome is self-explanatory.

Yes, it's basically the other external factors which saved their behinds, with most notably of these factors being the weather.

 

[vostok]

Ok. It is your right to believe whatever you want. You can believe Hitler have been preparing best future for the people of the Earth (especially for your non-white kind). You can believe Stalin killed 15-150 millions of people (???). But offical archives say - 640000 in 30 years 1923-1953, including deaths by martial law.
Stalin turned Russia from ruins after 10 years of WW1 and Civil War into industrial, military, science and economical superpower with nuclear bomb already in 1949. Stalin won WW2 - the most scary and great war in all human history. It is the only war can be called just The War.
Judge him by the results that the country has achieved under his leadership. Not by the propaganda or fantasy books wrote by his enemies - capitalists, liberals, fascists and other strange people.

 

[Desert Fox]

You can believe Hitler have been preparing best future for the people of the Earth (especially for your non-white kind)

I don't think anyone here believes Hitler, or any leader for that matter, prepares a best future for the world.

Everyone looks after their own national interest. Just like your Stalin recognized Zionist Israel before any other country, disregarding the Zionist occupation and ethnic cleansing of Arab Muslims and Christians in Palestine, because Stalin believed it to be in Soviet Unions interest to recognize Israel.

Similarly, Hitler was the leader of Germany, and he was clear in his agenda and did not hide behind false pretenses of "universal brotherhood" because this is a lie. At least we knew his position.

You can believe Stalin killed 15-150 millions of people (???). But offical archives say - 640000 in 30 years 1923-1953, including deaths by martial law.

Which official archives? The ones under Stalin or the ones under Kruschev? They seem to contradict each other.

Stalin turned Russia from ruins after 10 years of WW1 and Civil War into industrial, military, science and economical superpower with nuclear bomb already in 1949. Stalin won WW2 - the most scary and great war in all human history.

only war can be called just The War.
Judge him by the results that the country has achieved under his leadership.

No doubt, credit to Stalin where credit is due. He was a man of steel, but he was just as cold as steel too and had no regard for the human cost to his own people in transforming Russia within a very short span of time.

It is like making an infant into a fully grown adult in 10 years. You can imagine how painful this process would be and the emotional and physical cost.

Not by the propaganda or fantasy books wrote by his enemies - capitalists, liberals, fascists and other strange people.

I would give you benefit of the doubt if this was just a one-off case of Soviet Union only, but it is not because everywhere Communism was tried it ended up killing millions of it's own followers and ended up failing as an economic and political system to such an extent that the remaining Communist countries have deviated from Marxism and have embraced extreme nationalism, authoritarianism/totalitarianism mixed with atheism and capitalism (in China's example).

You say humans are not yet ready for communism? In reality communism is not ready for humans, or the real world for that matter.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Germans would have defeat all parties involved if they fought separately .. USA , UK , Japan or USSR .. but if you are attacking Russia than best pray that they don't bring those Serbian battalions .

 

[nahtanbob]

Hitler was a GREAT man, even if he made some mistakes, he was still a man of integrity.

There is nothing great about Hitler. He stained Germany's name with mass murder. He sacrificed lives of millions in a fruitless war

You just called all good things Fascism, and I call them Communism. Communism is not about Revolution only. Communism is the next step of social evolution. Slavery - Feodalism- Capitalism - Socialism - Communism. People just do not ready for that. May be after 500 years or so.
And here is something for you.
Twelve rules of the Builder of Communism
Here are the commandments which were written as a part of the Third Party Programme:

Loyalty to Communism, and love of the socialist Motherland and other socialist countries.
Conscious work for the good of the society: One who doesn't work, doesn't get to eat.
Care for the collective property, as well as the multiplying of this property.
High consciousness of the social responsibilities, and intolerance to the violation of the social interests.
Collectivism and comradery: All for one and one for all.
Humane relationships between human beings: One human being is a friend, a comrade and a brother to another human being.
Honesty, ethical cleanliness, as well as simplicity and modesty both in private and public life.
Mutual respect in the family, and care for the upbringing of the children.
Intolerance to the injustice, social parasitism, unfairness, careerism, and acquisitiveness.
Friendship and brotherhood with all the nations of the USSR, intolerance to all racial and national dislike.
Intolerance to the enemies of communism, peace and freedom of peoples of the world.
Brotherly solidarity to all workers of all countries and nations.

In general Western societies incorporated a lot of principles of Karl Marx/Das Engels into their systems. USA and Western Europe have Social Security, public pensions, heatlh care and public education system that has lifted the lives of hundreds of millions. At the same time they have protected individual rights and civil liberties.

On the other hand a lot of "Communist inspired states" have committed severe human right abuses and caused great human siuffering in the name of revolution and socialism.

 

[jhungary]

Yes, but Russian environment began to take its toll, and the Wehrmacht were unable to replenish their ranks in the EAST since US set its foot in Europe and Africa to neutralize Axis powers. US also facilitated Soviet war-effort against the Wehrmacht (Lend-Lease Program).

This isn't to say that Soviets were inconsequential. They were willing to fight till the end and their courage had no peer.

Nevertheless, the Wehrmacht ended up fighting on several fronts while German homeland was being subjected to spirit-shattering bombing runs. This was too much pressure to cope with, and the outcome is self-explanatory.

Which is quite strange, consider it was Hitler who before 1940 said "UK must be conquered before move on to Soviet Russia" and then it was Hitler who attack Soviet Union after the battle of Britain failed. Which just did not make sense to anyone.

In a traditional sense, Germany should never be involved in North African Campaign, most of the colony in Africa is Italian and fighting there without controlling Gibraltar and Malta would mean you will have absolutely no support on North Africa battlefield.

And then Italy didn't pull their weight does not help.

 

[nahtanbob]

Which is quite strange, consider it was Hitler who before 1940 said "UK must be conquered before move on to Soviet Russia" and then it was Hitler who attack Soviet Union after the battle of Britain failed. Which just did not make sense to anyone.

In a traditional sense, Germany should never be involved in North African Campaign, most of the colony in Africa is Italian and fighting there without controlling Gibraltar and Malta would mean you will have absolutely no support on North Africa battlefield.

And then Italy didn't pull their weight does not help.

Hitler did not have to invade Soviet Union. A powerful navy to control the mediterranean and conquer North Africa would have been sufficient. he would have the oil from Libya/Algeria to sustain his armies

i do not think Stalin had the appetite for a war with a powerful rival like Nazi Germany. Unlike Hitler Stalin did listen to his close advisors.

 

[jhungary]

Hitler did not have to invade Soviet Union. A powerful navy to control the mediterranean and conquer North Africa would have been sufficient. he would have the oil from Libya/Algeria to sustain his armies

i do not think Stalin had the appetite for a war with a powerful rival like Nazi Germany. Unlike Hitler Stalin did listen to his close advisors.

Well, in a pure military angle, the first choice of oil field would be in the Caucasus Mountain, due to its proximity, then Middle East, and then North Africa.

That's because North Africa would only work if Kriegsmarine can secure both port connecting Europe and North Africa and cannot be interdict. Otherwise, the only way to go around is to loop all the way from Egypt and up, which mean you need to get rid of the British Crowd Jewel of North Africa, which is Egypt and if you can, then Middle East oil is not far anyway.

However, since at no time Nazi German control either Malta and Gibraltar or both, you cannot ship oil direct from North Africa across the Mediterranean, and with Kriegsmarine capability focus on submarine, which mean any convoy to and from Europe and North Africa bound is fair game.

If Hitler really want to win, they should have invade Russia first before going to Belgium and France. That is when Nazi German at its strongest strength, I am not saying this is a done deal, but that is when Nazi Germany is at its strongest, if they can't do it then, that mean they will not be able to pull it out rest of the war.

 

[nahtanbob]

Well, in a pure military angle, the first choice of oil field would be in the Caucasus Mountain, due to its proximity, then Middle East, and then North Africa.

That's because North Africa would only work if Kriegsmarine can secure both port connecting Europe and North Africa and cannot be interdict. Otherwise, the only way to go around is to loop all the way from Egypt and up, which mean you need to get rid of the British Crowd Jewel of North Africa, which is Egypt and if you can, then Middle East oil is not far anyway.

However, since at no time Nazi German control either Malta and Gibraltar or both, you cannot ship oil direct from North Africa across the Mediterranean, and with Kriegsmarine capability focus on submarine, which mean any convoy to and from Europe and North Africa bound is fair game.

If Hitler really want to win, they should have invade Russia first before going to Belgium and France. That is when Nazi German at its strongest strength, I am not saying this is a done deal, but that is when Nazi Germany is at its strongest, if they can't do it then, that mean they will not be able to pull it out rest of the war.

War with the Soviet Union is thankless given the sheer distances and cold winters. It should have been last resort.
Germany needed a navy strong enough to control the Mediterranean. Conquering Malta would be sufficient.

If you are strong enough to beat Soviet Union German troops will roll into the Middle East - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine and then Egypt. Then off to North Africa or Saudi Arabia

 

[jhungary]

War with the Soviet Union is thankless given the sheer distances and cold winters. It should have been last resort.
Germany needed a navy strong enough to control the Mediterranean. Conquering Malta would be sufficient.

If you are strong enough to beat Soviet Union German troops will roll into the Middle East - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine and then Egypt. Then off to North Africa or Saudi Arabia

I would rate Gibraltar more important than Malta, while both were important, but Gibraltar being the chokehold of Mediterranean, if it was under KM control, Royal Navy present is basically slim to none in the Med.

Conquering Soviet Union is possible, however, most likely Germany cannot do it alone. and most certainly cannot be done with another 2 active frontlines, if Germany can pull Finland (and to some extend, Sweden), Japan and attack Soviet Union in 3 sides and worn out Soviet Defence. That is the best bet. Otherwise you need your troop in primo strength and number to do the job fighting the Russian along a single front.

But yeah, if Germany can do that, and if the UK and France decided to leave Russia be, then the war may have a very different outcome.

 

[Desert Fox]

There is nothing great about Hitler. He stained Germany's name with mass murder. He sacrificed lives of millions in a fruitless war

So he did what all great men do? Lol

Hitler was a great man, and he will be remembered as such. History is soon going to be rewritten in the West, I can assure you that much.

In general Western societies incorporated a lot of principles of Karl Marx/Das Engels into their systems. USA and Western Europe have Social Security, public pensions, heatlh care and public education system that has lifted the lives of hundreds of millions. At the same time they have protected individual rights and civil liberties.

That's actually not true. Social welfare systems existed before Marx and Engels brain farted and called it Communism.

In fact, nothing of Communism works because it is not practical.

And the things that did/do work in Communist societies contradict Communism/Marxism like patriarchy, Nationalism, religious morality, etc...

And there are plenty of non-Communist examples where social welfare was achieved without mass murder and collectivization characteristic of the every Communist experiment in history (Soviet Union, Cambodia, China, etc.).

Hitler did not have to invade Soviet Union.

Which is quite strange, consider it was Hitler who before 1940 said "UK must be conquered before move on to Soviet Russia" and then it was Hitler who attack Soviet Union after the battle of Britain failed. Which just did not make sense to anyone.

In a traditional sense, Germany should never be involved in North African Campaign, most of the colony in Africa is Italian and fighting there without controlling Gibraltar and Malta would mean you will have absolutely no support on North Africa battlefield.

And then Italy didn't pull their weight does not help.

In fact, yes he did need to invade the Soviet Union. See Churchill's letters to Stalin urging him to attack from the east. Also see Churchill's leniency toward Soviet complicity in the invasion of Poland and the provision of resources to Nazi Germany to invade France and low countries.

A powerful navy to control the mediterranean and conquer North Africa would have been sufficient. he would have the oil from Libya/Algeria to sustain his armies

i do not think Stalin had the appetite for a war with a powerful rival like Nazi Germany. Unlike Hitler Stalin did listen to his close advisors.

To built a powerful navy you need resources to build one (obviously). A sea route is vulnerable to British navy as shown from German experience in WW1. Soviet Union had those resources. Libya was not a reliable source precisely because it would require sea transport to bring in the fuel from a route vulnerable to allied raids..

i do not think Stalin had the appetite for a war with a powerful rival like Nazi Germany.

Not true. He did, see Khalkin Gol; proof of readiness of red army.

Also see Stalin's aggressive demands on Germany when he moved red army formations into Bessarabia and Bukovina which is in Romania where Germans got their fuel from, and also overtly expressed solidarity with Yugoslavia when Germans invaded as a result of British backed coup toppling the pro-German government, another example of Soviet breach of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

https://m.ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=254

Also see Stalin's refusal to renew a second Molotov-Ribbentrop pact despite generous German offers (like warm water sea ports of Iran and India as well as other English and French colonies).

Hitler did the right thing, and credit to his acumen. Only his Generals screwed up the initial phase of Barbarossa by diverting tanks and troops away from the southern pincer and towards Moscow instead.

@Nilgiri @Psychic @LeGenD @Metanoia