Compare the defeat of Napoleon and the Nazis by the Russian?

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
bruce
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 May 2002 21:20
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by bruce » 29 Oct 2002 05:41

HaEn some good points there...
by the way do u know why hitler chose june 22 for the beginning of barbarossa?

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 29 Oct 2002 09:06

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
Napoleon couldn't possible had known what would happen - there were no history to warn him.

Christian
An historical blunder of the first magnitude, my dear moderator! Do you not know your own nation's history?

The invasion of Russia by the armies of Charles XII of Sweden was defeated at the battle of Poltava, 8 July 1709, after those armies had been severely affected by the winter of 1708-09 and the scorched earth tactics of the Russians. In other words, precisely the factors that defeated Napoleon.

Furthermore, there had been many successful invasions of Russia from the West. A Polish army took Moscow in the early 17th century, and Muscovy was a satellite of Poland for several years at that time.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 29 Oct 2002 09:12

Furthermore, there had been many successful invasions of Russia from the West
except for the one you just mentioned -what else? [/quote]

User avatar
ziggy wiseman
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 12:52
Location: Canada

Re: nap / hit

Post by ziggy wiseman » 29 Oct 2002 16:04

[quote="HaEn"]Both were Corporals who had military experience, but got in over their head.... )

I think Bonaparte was a general before becoming emperor,and i'm pretty sure that his code of law is still in use in France and part of Canada

User avatar
ziggy wiseman
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 12:52
Location: Canada

Re: nap / hit

Post by ziggy wiseman » 29 Oct 2002 16:05

[quote="HaEn"]Both were Corporals who had military experience, but got in over their head.... )

I think Bonaparte was a general before becoming emperor,and i'm pretty sure that his code of law is still in use in France and part of Canada

User avatar
ziggy wiseman
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 12:52
Location: Canada

Re: nap / hit

Post by ziggy wiseman » 29 Oct 2002 16:06

[quote="HaEn"]Both were Corporals who had military experience, but got in over their head.... )

I think Bonaparte was a general before becoming emperor,and i'm pretty sure that his code of law is still in use in France and part of Canada

User avatar
Schwalbe
Member
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Sep 2002 11:10
Location: Sweden

Post by Schwalbe » 29 Oct 2002 17:20

t is not that I don't believ - I know he was not there
Ok, maybe he wasn´t there, but that was von Mansteins opinion which I think is interesting enough. Why you are laughing I don´t understand- are you an immature 18 year old or something? :?

User avatar
ziggy wiseman
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 12:52
Location: Canada

Post by ziggy wiseman » 29 Oct 2002 18:40

Sorry for this "repetition",i have problem with my pc

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14010
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 29 Oct 2002 21:02

michael mills wrote:Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
Napoleon couldn't possible had known what would happen - there were no history to warn him.

Christian
An historical blunder of the first magnitude, my dear moderator! Do you not know your own nation's history?

The invasion of Russia by the armies of Charles XII of Sweden was defeated at the battle of Poltava, 8 July 1709, after those armies had been severely affected by the winter of 1708-09 and the scorched earth tactics of the Russians. In other words, precisely the factors that defeated Napoleon.
I am Danish, not Swedish - be carefull if you come to Denmark or Sweden, and mix up the two in front of a drunk person. You might end up in a nasty situation :D
michael mills wrote:Furthermore, there had been many successful invasions of Russia from the West. A Polish army took Moscow in the early 17th century, and Muscovy was a satellite of Poland for several years at that time.
Doesn't that support my point?

I find it most interresting, thatthe country that has been most succesful in waging war against Russia is - Russia. After all, it has been thecivil wars that have been the longest, and often hard or impossible to break down.

Christian

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 29 Oct 2002 21:06

somebody has calculated that out of aproximately 1600 years of Russian hsitory only 30 yeras were spent without armed conflicts

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 30 Oct 2002 11:39

Schwalbe -

you are absolutely and completely wrong. Von Manstein did not command the advance on Moscow and never held a command on the central sector. In late autumn 1941 he was not even an army commander yet.

cheers

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 30 Oct 2002 12:38

Let's just as well consider the Swedish invasion in the early 18th century too. There are of course vast differences in many ways between the thre conflicts, but also some fascinating similarities.

* In all three cases, Russia was invaded by an army generally considered the best in Europe during it's day

* In all three cases, Russia met with serious initial defeats in battle at the hands of that army - Narva, Borodino, Minsk/Kiev/Smolensk/Vyazma/Brjansk.

* In all three cases, logistical difficulties due to the enormity of the space, lack of infrastructure and difficult terrain and weather played a crucial role in weakening the effective force of the invaders

* In all three cases, the decisive turning point came under circumstances where the invaders were weakened by these logistical difficulties, overstretched, and in a position where Russia could choose battle on her own terms to a considerable extent - Poltava, the retreat from Moscow, Uranus

* In all three cases, Russian victory brought the ultimate collapse of a great empire


All of which suggests that it is a risky business to invade Russia, to employ a monumental understatement :). The key might have been to always put logistics first, and to avoid getting dragged into situations by which the defender would profit. But then you are looking at a drawn-out campaign that could go on indefinitely. Few invaders can afford that.

But then of course, there is one modern-day example of Russian defeat - World War I. Not that it contains much in the way of revolutionary solutions to these problems - it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the Germans succeeded in this mainly because Russia at that time happened to be in a state of uncharacteristic military and political weakness.

cheers

User avatar
bruce
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 May 2002 21:20
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by bruce » 31 Oct 2002 05:50

Qvist, excellet points!

but with that moder example wwI doesnt really fit...afghanistan fits better

by the way, afghnas and mongols have won the war, to some extent, against russians...can it be because both theaters of war were in eastern part or russia rather than the european part?

perhaps napoleon and hitler invaded russia from the wrong side? lol

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 31 Oct 2002 07:00

Ovist wrote :
In all three cases, Russia met with serious initial defeats in battle at the hands of that army - Narva, Borodino, Minsk/Kiev/Smolensk/Vyazma/Brjansk
I disagree about Borodino.I would not say it was the Russian defeat.
Regards.

User avatar
Bad Tolz
Member
Posts: 289
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 07:24
Location: Many places!

Post by Bad Tolz » 31 Oct 2002 10:56

I think that both men,Napoleon and Hitler underestimated strength and resolve of Russian people.German soldiers,and Napoleons soldiers (who incidently came from quite a few backgrounds)commented that ferocity of Russian troops was that that was never seen in opponents anywhere.Ability of Russian soldier to fight on in bleak situations is major factor-they could not be worn down.
As for matter of Afghanistan,one looking at facts cannot really see MILITARY win for Afghans...if you look at everything,it was the Afghans who were soundly beaten.
Regards.
PS.Winter also played crucial parts,funny enough,both German army and Napoleon army faced very very strong Russian winter,ones that were due for a very long time.Weird....

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”