What's new

When Hitler "refused" to defeat Britain

This is not history, as History does not happened that way. Hitler decided to hit Civilian Population, that's is the history.

Bomber Harris decided to attack civilian targets. RAF attacked Berlin first because they were feeling the heat. The fact that nearly half the world had to combine and fight for 5 years to defeat a single Germany shows just how good Germany was.

The british make a lot of propaganda. James Bond being the best example. In reality the KGB would eat british intelligence for breakfast and it was proved when the FSB assassinated one under british surveillance and protection.

What I said was according to physical limit and from common sense, if you have anything to challenge what I said, please do go ahead, blame it on Winner writes history is in another word, means you are simply doing a loser talk.

Common sense AND history also says that the RAF were getting hammered. The RAF did not rule the skies over Germany during battle of britain, if Luftwaffe could not target british industrial bases then RAF could not target German industrial bases either regardless of 4 engine or 8 engine bomber.

Seems like you have only propaganda and loser talk to back you up. What a waste.
 
.
Bomber Harris decided to attack civilian targets. RAF attacked Berlin first because they were feeling the heat. The fact that nearly half the world had to combine and fight for 5 years to defeat a single Germany shows just how good Germany was.

The british make a lot of propaganda. James Bond being the best example. In reality the KGB would eat british intelligence for breakfast and it was proved when the FSB assassinated one under british surveillance and protection.



Common sense AND history also says that the RAF were getting hammered. The RAF did not rule the skies over Germany during battle of britain, if Luftwaffe could not target british industrial bases then RAF could not target German industrial bases either regardless of 4 engine or 8 engine bomber.

Seems like you have only propaganda and loser talk to back you up. What a waste.

Dude, first of all, It does not matter if UK attack German's Civilian first, just because the UK does it, it does not mean Germany need to follow. Bringing up who start what first does not even matter

Second of all. IT IS SOLID FACT that the fight is OVER BRITAIN not over Germany, ipso facto GERMANY NEED TO FIGHT IN BRITISH SPACE. The Fact that RAF cannot touch Germany Industry is again, not related to the facts, as I already assume the replacement rate is the same between RAF and Luftwaffe. The recovery rate is different. As it is simply fighting INSIDE ENGLAND, RAF would have a recovery rate of ABOVE ZERO, while the Luftwaffe would have a recover rate of ABSOLUTE ZERO, since you fight on a hostile territories, any airmen you lost over Britain will be capture or killed by the RAF. Ipso Facto, Germany would have a faster rate of decline than the British, unless you can prove the German's production can re-balance that recovery rate, arguing British cannot touch German's industrial zone only make the situation equal, not in favour to.

It's a waste of my time to talk to you lol, loser will always bark louder when confronted with facts.
 
.
This is a false statement.
In those days, submarines weren't as much of a threat to warships as they are today. After the introduction of ASDIC detection system and enigma code breaking ability, the fate of Uboats was sealed. The Germans did not produce that much number of warships only because of the treaty of Versailles. The Uboats mostly sunk merchant ships, not warships.

Consider

Allied warships hit by U-boats
260 instances of allied warships hit by U-boats. 575,066 tons
Allied warships hit by U-boats - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net

Allied Auxiliary Warships hit by U-boats
97 instances of allied auxiliary warships hit by U-boats. 455,566 tons
Allied Auxiliary Warships hit by U-boats in WWII - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net

So, total 357 instances ("ships"), good for 1,030,632 tons

A post-second world war analysis of U-boat activity records some 4409 attacks on shipping. Subsequent analysis of this information reveals the following details;
Ships Sunk: 2919
Tons sunk: 14,232,747
% of total attacks: 66.2
uboat.net - Special Sections - Attack Analysis

So naval shipping sunk is about 12% of all ships sunk and 7% of all tonnage sunk .

That is a relative high percent, considering the size of a typical convoy and of a typical convoy escort group (apart from naval task forces).

Early convoys were small, comprising thirty to fifty ships, but they grew gradually larger as the war progressed. The largest, HXS.300 comprised 167 ships. It left New York for the U.K. on July 17, 1944 with an RCN mid-ocean escort of one frigate and six corvettes.
...
A typical convoy of forty ships might be ten columns wide, with four ships in each column
...
If the convoy had six escorts, one (the Senior Officer's ship, usually a destroyer) would be positioned ahead of the convoy by day and astern by night. The other escorts would be stationed one on each bow, one on each beam of the convoy and one astern.
...
As the war progressed and more escorts became available, the British Royal Navy (RN) and later the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) were able to create support groups which could go to the aid of engangered convoys or convoys under heavy attack.
Maritime Command Museum

A hunter-killer group would consist of one escort carrier and several escorts
Hunter-Killer Groups - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net
Surface escorts - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net

1735 ships hit from 682 convoys.
Convoy Battles - German U-boat Operations - uboat.net

Merchants obviously most lost to subs
The National Archives Learning Curve | World War II | Atlantic 1939-1945: Battle of the Atlantic


_____________________________________________________________________________
Major British Warship Losses in World War 2
ROYAL NAVY LOSSES and LOSSES INFLICTED BY THE ROYAL NAVY ON THE AXIS NAVIES

1945


COnclusion:





RN losses by cause:


Capital ships
Lost by submarine (torpedoed) 2, Total lost 5
40%

Carriers
Lost by submarine (torpedoed) 7, Total lost 10

70%

Cruisers
Lost by submarine (torpedoed) 9, Total lost 34
26%


Destroyers
Lost by submarine (torpedoed) 33, Total lost 153
22%


Submarines
Lost by submarine (torpedoed) 5, Total lost 76

7%



Total lost 278, of which:
by Surface forces 61 (22%)
by Submarines 56 (20%)
by Mines 54 (19%)
by Aircraft 77 ()
other (shore defence, accidents, unknown) 28 (10%)

By comparison to RN,
between December 1941 and September 1945, over 350 U.S. Navy warships and patrol craft were sunk or damaged beyond repair.
Notable U.S. Navy Ships Lost Since World War II - USNI News
 
Last edited:
.
If it wasn't for Hitler's stupid decisions like this (invasion of USSR or letting the British run away), Germany had won the war in less than 2 years. He had this illusion that his quick victories in Europe means he can open various huge fronts. Even U.S would be defeated in Europe by Germans and they would never become the superpowers, at least not sooner than Germans. and the course of history would have been changed.

German generals in WWII were real geniuses, their tactics should be taught in military academies for years.
 
.
TABLE I: TOTAL OF JAPANESE NAVAL AND MERCHANT VESSELS SUNK DURING WORLD WAR II

Sinking Agent TOTAL, of which by United States Forces & of which by submarines (%)

Naval Vessels
No. 686 611 & 201 (33%)
Tonnage 1,965,646 1,822,210 & 540,192 (30%)

Merchant Vessels
No. 2,346 2,117 & 1,113 (53%)
Tonnage 8,618,109 7,913,858 & 4,779,902 (60%)

Total Vessels
No. 3,032 2,728 & 1,314 (48%)
Tonnage 10,583,755 9,736,068 & 5,320,094 (55%)
Japanese Naval and Merchant Shipping Losses - WWII

Here too, while attacks on merchant shipping are obviously dominated by submarines, the dangers to naval vessels should not be underestimated.


The submarine force was the most effective anti-ship and anti-submarine weapon in the entire American arsenal. Submarines, though only about 2 percent of the U.S. Navy, destroyed over 30 percent of the Japanese Navy, including 8 aircraft carriers, 1 battleship and 11 cruisers. U.S. submarines also destroyed over 60 percent of the Japanese merchant fleet, crippling Japan's ability to supply its military forces and industrial war effort. Allied submarines in the Pacific War destroyed more Japanese shipping than all other weapons combined. This feat was considerably aided by the Imperial Japanese Navy's failure to provide adequate escort forces for the nation's merchant fleet.
Submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Says who?
The german U-boats were far superior subs to anything the royal navy had. Rest is all allied propaganda.

Really? Says who? You?

The Royal Navy Submarine Service was used primarily in the classic British blockade role. Its major operating areas were around Norway, in the Mediterranean (against the Axis supply routes to North Africa), and in the Far East. In that war, British submarines sank 2 million tons of enemy shipping and 57 major warships, the latter including 35 submarines. Among these is the only documented instance of a submarine sinking another submarine while both were submerged. This occurred when HMS Venturer engaged the U864; the Venturer crew manually computed a successful firing solution against a three-dimensionally maneuvering target using techniques which became the basis of modern torpedo computer targeting systems. Seventy-four British submarines were lost,[26] the majority, 42, in the Mediterranean.
Submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of submarines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The standard U-boat had been the Type VII, of which more than 700 were built. They were around 200ft long, with a surface displacement of 760 tons, and a surface speed of 15 knots, equalling the speed of most surface ships. They had a dive time of 20 seconds to a maximum safe depth of 650ft, a range of over 8,700 miles, and could go seven or eight weeks without refuelling. Britain’s equivalent workhorse was the T-class.
They were the first of the Navy’s boats to have their fuel tanks inside the hull, eradicating the problem of leaking fuel leaving surface trails. Whilst slightly smaller than the classes they replaced, they were an all-round improvement, and an all-welded hull meant they were stronger and able to dive deeper.
The T-class performed sterling service in all naval theatres of war.
Submarine – The History of Submarine War | Military History Monthly

Germans lost many U-boats to the Allied submarine forces during 1939-1945. Several of those were lost with all hands. British submarines were the busiest with 13 kills.
U-boats sunk by Allied Submarines - Fates - German U-boats of WWII - Kriegsmarine - uboat.net

U-boats sunk by Allied submarines: 24 boats (of which 13 by British subs)

Bomber Harris decided to attack civilian targets. RAF attacked Berlin first because they were feeling the heat. The fact that nearly half the world had to combine and fight for 5 years to defeat a single Germany shows just how good Germany was.

Common sense AND history also says that the RAF were getting hammered. The RAF did not rule the skies over Germany during battle of britain, if Luftwaffe could not target british industrial bases then RAF could not target German industrial bases either regardless of 4 engine or 8 engine bomber.
We've had a long discussion previously about terror bombing. The Condor legion and later the luftwaffe set the tone (Guernica, Spain; Warsaw, Poland; Rotterdam, Netherlands etc)

As for half te world combining just to defeat Germany, this disregards the German allies. Besides ITALY and JAPAN...
Affiliated states: Romania Hungary Bulgaria Slovakia Thailand
Co-belligerent states: Finland, Iraq
and some 16 client states
Axis powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you consider that German bombers could not REACH some portions of British industry.... t least not with a meaning full bomb load? Whereas the Brits could reach well into Germany, notably Ruhr area, with heavies.

Armstrong Whitworth A.W.38 Whitley
  • Range: 1,430 nmi (1,650 mi, 2,650 km)

Vicker Wellington
Range: 2,550 mi (2,217 nmi, 4,106 km)

Short Sterling
Range: 2,330 mi (3,750 km)

Handley Page Halifax
Range: 1,860 mi (3,000 km) combat

Avro Manchester
Range: 1,200 miles (1,930 km) with maximum bomb load of 10,350 lb (4,695 kg)

Avro lancaster
Range: 2,530 mi (2,200 nmi, 4,073 km)

Heinkel He 111
Range: 2,300 km (1,429 mi) with maximum fuel

Junkers Ju 88
Range: 2,430 km[62] (1,429 mi) maximum internal fuel

Dornier DO 17
Combat range:

660 km (410 mi; 356 nmi) with 1,540 l (339 imp gal) fuel and 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) of bombs
1,010 km (628 mi) with 2,435 l (536 imp gal) fuel and 500 kg (1,102 lb) of bombs

map-battle-of-britain-px800.jpg

Battle of Britain: Operation Sealion to the Blitz (1940-1941)

See also JF Ptak Science Books: Graphical Display of Data: the R.A.F. and Luftwaffe Present Their Cases, 1938-1940
blog1sept_15raf_range_1939551.jpg


JF Ptak Science Books: Graphical Display of Data: the R.A.F. and Luftwaffe Present Their Cases, 1938-1940
 
.
If it wasn't for Hitler's stupid decisions like this (invasion of USSR or letting the British run away), Germany had won the war in less than 2 years. He had this illusion that his quick victories in Europe means he can open various huge fronts. Even U.S would be defeated in Europe by Germans and they would never become the superpowers, at least not sooner than Germans. and the course of history would have been changed.

German generals in WWII were real geniuses, their tactics should be taught in military academies for years.
There's plenty of evidence to prove that Stalin was preparing to attack Hitler from the East no later than July, 1941. Literally a few weeks after the Germans themselves attacked the Soviet Union. Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was planned and executed in haste with the aim of preempting the Red Army's own planned offensive into Europe, and it failed exactly for that reason.
 
.
There's plenty of evidence to prove that Stalin was preparing to attack Hitler from the East no later than July, 1941. Literally a few weeks after the Germans themselves attacked the Soviet Union. Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was planned and executed in haste with the aim of preempting the Red Army's own planned offensive into Europe, and it failed exactly for that reason.

I haven't seen any reliable reports indicating that Soviets were planning on invading Germany, while there was an agreement between 2 countries not 2 attack each other, just before the start of WWII. Even if that's the case, it would be much easier to defend Soviets in Europe instead of going to Soviet territory.

Not only the invasion itself, but also the decisions in course of the Soviet invasion, like getting involved in disastrous battle of Stalingrad that obliterated the powerful 6th army of Wehrmacht. while they could have gone to Moscow at first, or the siege of Leningrad that didn't bear any fruits. These are all Hitler's direct decisions. I have read before that many of his commanders had told him that going for Stalingrad is not necessary and may become too costly, while the Wehrmacht can go directly for Moscow and surrounding areas. If the Moscow had fallen, it would be a massive blow to Soviets.
 
.
I haven't seen any reliable reports indicating that Soviets were planning on invading Germany, while there was an agreement between 2 countries not 2 attack each other, just before the start of WWII. Even if that's the case, it would be much easier to defend Soviets in Europe instead of going to Soviet territory.
Well, there was also an agreement between the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan not to attack each other, but on August 8, 1945 the Soviet Union violated the Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact and invaded Japanese Manchuria and Kuril Islands, also threatening a seaborne invasion of the Japanese mainland.

There are in fact VERY reliable reports indicating that the Soviets intended to do to Germany EXACTLY what they did to Japan in August 1945, that is back stab the Germans when they were at their weakest, just as Japan in August 1945 too was at its weakest.

Stalin viewed Hitler as "the icebreaker of the world revolution", meaning in other words Hitler was in Stalin's eyes the the bulldozer that would flatten Europe and trigger a world war in which the Soviet Union would then "liberate" all of the countries occupied by the "Fascists". That is why Stalin actively colluded with Hitler in dividing and occupying Poland (what started the war), and then provided Hitler with almost limitless resources for continuing the war against Britain and France, dragging not only the entire European continent into the war but also the colonies of the far east, Africa, and South America, making the world "ripe for a revolution." As Lenin once put it "The first imperialist war triggered a Communist revolution in Russia, therefore we need a second imperialist war to trigger a worldwide revolution." That was the aim of the Soviet Union since its inception, and that was the goal Stalin wanted to fulfill.

Of course, Stalin did not expect lighting German victory over Britain and France on mainland Europe. But Stalin did hope that Hitler would invade Britain and focus his entire resources on Operation Seal Lion, thus giving him an opportunity to attack from the east and "liberate Europe" from Nazi occupation; the occupation which he himself aided in.

But Hitler realized the plans as the Germans noticed the massive Red Army troop movements and concentration of Tanks, aircraft, infantry, and artillery massed on their Eastern border, a phenomena in history never before witnessed nor since. The Soviet support for the overthrow of the pro-German Yugoslav gov.t and the Red Army's dangerously close invasion & occupation of Bukovina which threatened the Ploesti oilfields in Romania from which Germany derived most of its fuel needs further added to German suspicions of aggressive Soviet intentions. The German's themselves duped Stalin unintentionally by not preparing their troops with adequate winter equipment like frost resistant lubricants for vehicles, guns, and aircraft, padded clothing, etc... Stalin's spies within Nazi occupied Europe reported to him that no attempts were being made to harvest wool on a large scale therefore no German preparations were underway for an invasion since wool is required for winter clothing for any invader intending on occupying Russia, even though Soviet reconnaissance aircraft began to notice large columns of German troops, tanks, artillery and aircraft on their border; a mirror image of their own deployment of Red Army troops, tanks, aircraft, and artillery. But Stalin refused to believe the reports of German troop concentrations because to him the Germans would be too stupid to invade without the proper equipment for the Russian environment. But he was proven wrong and you know the rest from there.

But what i have explained is a condensed version in which i have left out some of the major details which you can read about here in the following links:

Icebreaker -- Who Started the Second World War? (review)

Historian Details Stalin's Two-Year 'Mobilization' Plan for European Conquest (review)

Suvorov's 'The Last Republic' (Review)

New Evidence on the 1941 'Barbarossa' Attack (Review)

Stalin's War (Review)

Operation Barbarossa and the Russian Historians' Dispute

And here, i HIGHLY recommend this book to you by a former Soviet KGB officer, he has extensively written on this topic and his research has done a great deal of justice to this historical perspective, i cannot stress it enough.

The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II Reprint, Viktor Suvorov - Amazon.com

Any keen student of WW2 history and military strategy should read this book as it reveals a lot in terms of historical events as well as strategy involved in military thinking from the minds of some of the best strategists in history of modern warfare.

@Psychic @persona_non_grata @Gufi @WAJsal @waz


Not only the invasion itself, but also the decisions in course of the Soviet invasion, like getting involved in disastrous battle of Stalingrad that obliterated the powerful 6th army of Wehrmacht. while they could have gone to Moscow at first, or the siege of Leningrad that didn't bear any fruits. These are all Hitler's direct decisions. I have read before that many of his commanders had told him that going for Stalingrad is not necessary and may become too costly, while the Wehrmacht can go directly for Moscow and surrounding areas. If the Moscow had fallen, it would be a massive blow to Soviets.
Well, whatever the source(s) you read this information from the author truly lacked understanding of historical facts and military strategy.

Yes, the decisions made during the course of the war on the Eastern front by the German high command were truly disastrous, which only further adds to my point that the entire invasion was hastily planned as a preemptive strike to stall Soviet threat to Europe. But the bulk of these disastrous decisions were made not by Hitler, but by his Generals. Of course, after the war everyone blamed Hitler, after all it is easy to scapegoat a dead man who can't defend himself and no German general after the war wanted to attract the attention of powerful Jewish organizations looking to drag an old "Nazi" into prison for having any sympathies for Hitler.


Now, to get on point regarding Stalingrad, here is why Stalingrad was a necessary and strategic target.

Look at this map of the Caucasus, Stalingrad sits right on the entrance to the Caucasus. And not only that but it sits right on the river Volga, natures highway. Now why is this important? The Caucasus is where the Soviet war machine derived more than 85% of its fuel from, and the river Volga was used as a form of transporting this fuel. He who controlled Stalingrad controlled the entrance to the Caucasus, and he who controlled Stalingrad also dominated the river Volga.

At the time of the Battle for Stalingrad, the Germans already had around 700,000 troops in the Caucasus, thus capturing Stalingrad was of vital importance as it guarded the flank of this massive army in the Caucasus as well as cut off the main source of fuel supply of the Red Army, thus rendering the Soviets inept in launching large scale counter offensives.

stalingrad1[1].gif


Of course, how the Germans handled the Stalingrad battle is a whole different topic in itself and the blame does not solely rest on Hitler's shoulders. But what im getting at is that Stalingrad was not an unnecessary target. In fact it was of vital importance to the Germans and the Soviets. However the Germans acted too late. Instead of heading straight on for Moscow in 1941 they should have focused on heading for the Caucasus from the onset of Barbarossa. Hitler actually insisted on this plan but his Generals overrided his decisions and headed straight for Moscow instead, which proved to be disastrous because they were never able to capture the city. Even if the Germans did manage to capture Moscow in 1941, the Soviets already had an alternative capital further east and would only have shifted in that direction. However, the oil of the Caucasus and the city of Stalingrad's strategic location is not something that can be shifted.


 
Last edited:
.
Consider


Allied warships hit by U-boats - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net


Allied Auxiliary Warships hit by U-boats in WWII - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net

So, total 357 instances ("ships"), good for 1,030,632 tons


uboat.net - Special Sections - Attack Analysis

So naval shipping sunk is about 12% of all ships sunk and 7% of all tonnage sunk .

That is a relative high percent, considering the size of a typical convoy and of a typical convoy escort group (apart from naval task forces).


Maritime Command Museum


Hunter-Killer Groups - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net
Surface escorts - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net


Convoy Battles - German U-boat Operations - uboat.net

Merchants obviously most lost to subs
The National Archives Learning Curve | World War II | Atlantic 1939-1945: Battle of the Atlantic




1945


COnclusion:





RN losses by cause:


Capital ships
Lost by submarine (torpedoed) 2, Total lost 5
40%

Carriers
Lost by submarine (torpedoed) 7, Total lost 10

70%

Cruisers
Lost by submarine (torpedoed) 9, Total lost 34
26%


Destroyers
Lost by submarine (torpedoed) 33, Total lost 153
22%


Submarines
Lost by submarine (torpedoed) 5, Total lost 76

7%



Total lost 278, of which:
by Surface forces 61 (22%)
by Submarines 56 (20%)
by Mines 54 (19%)
by Aircraft 77 ()
other (shore defence, accidents, unknown) 28 (10%)

By comparison to RN,
Notable U.S. Navy Ships Lost Since World War II - USNI News
inflicting losses with Uboats is one thing but one for sure cannot rely on Uboats alone to dominate the seas and that was ultimately proven.
 
.
Well, there was also an agreement between the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan not to attack each other, but on August 8, 1945 the Soviet Union violated the Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact and invaded Japanese Manchuria and Kuril Islands, also threatening a seaborne invasion of the Japanese mainland.

There are in fact VERY reliable reports indicating that the Soviets intended to do to Germany EXACTLY what they did to Japan in August 1945, that is back stab the Germans when they were at their weakest, just as Japan in August 1945 too was at its weakest.

Stalin viewed Hitler as "the icebreaker of the world revolution", meaning in other words Hitler was in Stalin's eyes the the bulldozer that would flatten Europe and trigger a world war in which the Soviet Union would then "liberate" all of the countries occupied by the "Fascists". That is why Stalin actively colluded with Hitler in dividing and occupying Poland (what started the war), and then provided Hitler with almost limitless resources for continuing the war against Britain and France, dragging not only the entire European continent into the war but also the colonies of the far east, Africa, and South America, making the world "ripe for a revolution." As Lenin once put it "The first imperialist war triggered a Communist revolution in Russia, therefore we need a second imperialist war to trigger a worldwide revolution." That was the aim of the Soviet Union since its inception, and that was the goal Stalin wanted to fulfill.

Of course, Stalin did not expect lighting German victory over Britain and France on mainland Europe. But Stalin did hope that Hitler would invade Britain and focus his entire resources on Operation Seal Lion, thus giving him an opportunity to attack from the east and "liberate Europe" from Nazi occupation; the occupation which he himself aided in.

But Hitler realized the plans as the Germans noticed the massive Red Army troop movements and concentration of Tanks, aircraft, infantry, and artillery massed on their Eastern border, a phenomena in history never before witnessed nor since. The Soviet support for the overthrow of the pro-German Yugoslav gov.t and the Red Army's dangerously close invasion & occupation of Bukovina which threatened the Ploesti oilfields in Romania from which Germany derived most of its fuel needs further added to German suspicions of aggressive Soviet intentions. The German's themselves duped Stalin unintentionally by not preparing their troops with adequate winter equipment like frost resistant lubricants for vehicles, guns, and aircraft, padded clothing, etc... Stalin's spies within Nazi occupied Europe reported to him that no attempts were being made to harvest wool on a large scale therefore no German preparations were underway for an invasion since wool is required for winter clothing for any invader intending on occupying Russia, even though Soviet reconnaissance aircraft began to notice large columns of German troops, tanks, artillery and aircraft on their border; a mirror image of their own deployment of Red Army troops, tanks, aircraft, and artillery. But Stalin refused to believe the reports of German troop concentrations because to him the Germans would be too stupid to invade without the proper equipment for the Russian environment. But he was proven wrong and you know the rest from there.

But what i have explained is a condensed version in which i have left out some of the major details which you can read about here in the following links:

Icebreaker -- Who Started the Second World War? (review)

Historian Details Stalin's Two-Year 'Mobilization' Plan for European Conquest (review)

Suvorov's 'The Last Republic' (Review)

New Evidence on the 1941 'Barbarossa' Attack (Review)

Stalin's War (Review)

Operation Barbarossa and the Russian Historians' Dispute

And here, i HIGHLY recommend this book to you by a former Soviet KGB officer, he has extensively written on this topic and his research has done a great deal of justice to this historical perspective, i cannot stress it enough.

The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II Reprint, Viktor Suvorov - Amazon.com

Any keen student of WW2 history and military strategy should read this book as it reveals a lot in terms of historical events as well as strategy involved in military thinking from the minds of one of the best strategists in history of modern warfare.

@Psychic @persona_non_grata @Gufi @WAJsal @waz



Well, whatever the source(s) you read this information from the author truly lacked understanding of historical facts and military strategy.

Yes, the decisions made during the course of the war on the Eastern front by the German high command were truly disastrous, which only further adds to my point that the entire invasion was hastily planned as a preemptive strike to stall Soviet threat to Europe. But the bulk of these disastrous decisions were made not by Hitler, but by his Generals. Of course, after the war everyone blamed Hitler, after all it is easy to scapegoat a dead man who can't defend himself and no German general after the war wanted to attract the attention of powerful Jewish organizations looking to drag an old "Nazi" into prison for having any sympathies for Hitler.


Now, to get on point regarding Stalingrad, here is why Stalingrad was a necessary and strategic target.

Look at this map of the Caucasus, Stalingrad sits right on the entrance to the Caucasus. And not only that but it sits right on the river Volga, natures highway. Now why is this important? The Caucasus is where the Soviet war machine derived more than 85% of its fuel from, and the river Volga was used as a form of transporting this fuel. He who controlled Stalingrad controlled the entrance to the Caucasus, and he who controlled Stalingrad also dominated the river Volga.

At the time of the Battle for Stalingrad, the Germans already had around 700,000 troops in the Caucasus, thus capturing Stalingrad was of vital importance as it guarded the flank of this massive army in the Caucasus as well as cut off the main source of fuel supply of the Red Army, thus rendering the Soviets inept in launching large scale counter offensives.

Of course, how the Germans handled the Stalingrad battle is a whole different topic in itself and the blame does not solely rest on Hitler's shoulders. But what im getting at is that Stalingrad was not an unnecessary target. In fact it was of vital importance to the Germans and the Soviets. However the Germans acted too late. Instead of heading straight on for Moscow in 1941 they should have focused on heading for the Caucasus from the onset of Barbarossa. Hitler actually insisted on this plan but his Generals overrided his decisions and headed straight for Moscow instead, which proved to be disastrous because they were never able to capture the city. Even if the Germans did manage to capture Moscow in 1941, the Soviets already had an alternative capital further east and would only have shifted in that direction. However, the oil of the Caucasus and the city of Stalingrad's strategic location is not something that can be shifted.



Thanks bro, it was a pleasure to read your post.

Although I have read about WWII because of my personal interest, but this Icebreaker theory, it's the first time I'm hearing about it and it's all Suvorov's theory, right? How many other historians have accepted this theory? That Soviets were preparing to attack Germany and 'liberate Europe from Nazis' and to impose the 'Red Republics' all over the Europe? This sounds like a big claim, and if true, this means Stalin was a genius, although not much lucky to implement his plans.

Thanks for the book, I will certainly look into reading it, it seems like a very attractive theory and book to read. First, I should read Icebreaker though.
 
.
Thanks bro, it was a pleasure to read your post.

Although I have read about WWII because of my personal interest, but this Icebreaker theory, it's the first time I'm hearing about it and it's all Suvorov's theory, right? How many other historians have accepted this theory? That Soviets were preparing to attack Germany and 'liberate Europe from Nazis' and to impose the 'Red Republics' all over the Europe? This sounds like a big claim, and if true, this means Stalin was a genius, although not much lucky to implement his plans.

Thanks for the book, I will certainly look into reading it, it seems like a very attractive theory and book to read. First, I should read Icebreaker though.
The pleasures all mine bro.

Yes, that is correct, it is Suvorov's theory however the first such claims were made by German Generals during the Nuremberg trials wherein they defended their attack on the Soviet Union as a preemptive strike against an imminent Soviet invasion. Of course, at that time this was brushed off as "Nazi propaganda" and "Nazi excuses for lebensraum", etc.. but recent evidence has surfaced within Soviet archives as well as diaries of Soviet generals, politburo members and other high ranking officials along with documents of army group deployments along Germany's borders between 1939-1941, supporting the German claims (all of these documents are referenced and documented within the book The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II).

Yes, other Western historians and scholars have also looked into this theory and many have come to support Suvorov's research. The following is a list of some of such scholars and historians (all reputable BTW): "Viktor Suvorov, Mikhail Meltiukhov, V. A. Nevezhin, V. D. Danilov, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as well as several Germans (Joachim Hoffmann, Wolfgang Strauss, Fritz Becker) and Austrians (Heinz Magenheimer, Ernst Topitsch). (See review of Topitsch's Stalin's War in JHR, [Summer 1988]" Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia (Review)

There's more that have joined this perspective as well. Yes, Stalin was indeed a very intelligent, sly, cunning man (that's an understatement if you ask me). A evil genius to put it. The simple fact that most of the world knows very little of his intentions to this day proves that decades after his death his ability to hide his intentions still looms over the world.

Personally i would recommend you read The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II as it contains up to date information from newly released Soviet and German archives and other declassified documents pertaining to the events surrounding the bloodiest conflict in human history. Icebreaker was Suvorov's first book on this topic and since then he's written several other books in Russia expanding on this topic, including more new information along the way as it was released. Therefore The Chief Culprit is basically all of his Russian books on this topic including Icebreaker combined together and updated with addition of all new information. Instead of individually translating all of his Russian books on this topic Suvorov combined the vital information into one book for the English audience; The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II.

I would love to read his other books on this subject but too bad they are in Russian.

Here victor Suvorov gives a lecture at the United States Naval Academy:

 
Last edited:
.
There's plenty of evidence to prove that Stalin was preparing to attack Hitler from the East no later than July, 1941. Literally a few weeks after the Germans themselves attacked the Soviet Union. Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was planned and executed in haste with the aim of preempting the Red Army's own planned offensive into Europe, and it failed exactly for that reason.
maybe hitler should have seen that this is simply too much germany alone cant invade most of europe soviet union and the US and canada maybe if he could have finished off britain after entering paris much would have been different
 
.
maybe hitler should have seen that this is simply too much germany alone cant invade most of europe soviet union and the US and canada maybe if he could have finished off britain after entering paris much would have been different
In retrospect this is easier said than done. What started off as a local border conflict between Germany and Poland escalated into local war, then a regional war, and finally a global war. Neither Hitler nor the Nazi leadership intended events to spiral down this path of destruction. Its like a local territorial dispute between Egypt and Sudan which turns into a border skirmish ends up dragging Russia, China, USA, and the EU into a global war.

Things can get out of hand easily before one can prepare themselves adequately.
 
.
inflicting losses with Uboats is one thing but one for sure cannot rely on Uboats alone to dominate the seas and that was ultimately proven.
U boats were never intended to dominate the sea, they were to isolate and strangle Britain of supplies, just like the US subs did with Japan in the Pacific. Hence the carrier.
 
Last edited:
.
Thanks bro, it was a pleasure to read your post.

Although I have read about WWII because of my personal interest, but this Icebreaker theory, it's the first time I'm hearing about it and it's all Suvorov's theory, right? How many other historians have accepted this theory? That Soviets were preparing to attack Germany and 'liberate Europe from Nazis' and to impose the 'Red Republics' all over the Europe? This sounds like a big claim, and if true, this means Stalin was a genius, although not much lucky to implement his plans.

Thanks for the book, I will certainly look into reading it, it seems like a very attractive theory and book to read. First, I should read Icebreaker though.
Suvorov's books worth reading only if you like fantasy or so-called "alternative history".
To find some real history in his books as difficult as finding a giraffe in Antarctica.
Strictly for fans of conspiracy theories.
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom