Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Post Reply
User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#166

Post by bf109 emil » 26 Jan 2012, 20:26

Soviet oil production in1940 was 32 million tons
Yup for an inactive army/airforce/public :wink:
Germany was taking in 1940 657.398 ton of Soviet oil
Yup and Britain considered bombing these fields to prevent this... :lol:

Nice to know they must have swam in there 1940 production of oil if 19 million tons was all that was needed for an offensive drive of millions and hundreds of thousands of trucks, tanks, planes, etc. :roll: heck Russia oil production in 1913 was 9.2 million tons and by 1921 a mere 3.8 million tons 8O 8O source Stephen Tonge Russia 1917-24

but that is off topic irregardless...just of the 3 above battles, Germany's last major offensive to 'BETTER" the Reich was case blau of which Stalingrad was a defeat of...

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#167

Post by BDV » 24 Jul 2012, 19:29

ljadw wrote:Njax did write that Hitler might have won the war if he had not introduced the racial policy :IMHO,this is nonsens,and this has been debunked ,countless times .
Could you repeat the major elements of this "debunking", or at a minimum direct me to the threads where this "debunking" has ocurred?


Because to me, if there is one thing that would have made a major difference, Nazi Germany adopting a less exterminative jewish policy is at the top of the list, given the key role of the jewish community in the European commerce and economy at the time. One of "spotless" antisemitic credentials, Miklos "Nagybanyai" Horthy said as much himself:
We cannot eliminate the jews .... for we will become bankrupt
Miklos Horthy - Hungarian strongman and all around badass
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#168

Post by ljadw » 24 Jul 2012, 19:49

Well,there are no proofs that with an other ocupation policy,the reaction of the populations in the conquered countries would be different :these reactions were prudence and sitting on the fence .The extermination of the Jews did not change the attitude of the populations of the occupied parts of the SU.
The whole thing is the usual postwar inventions by the German generals:the stupid Hitler who was wasting Germany's chances :with an other policy,millions of Soviets would join the WM to liberate their country .A lot of inventions .The Red Army was fighting fanatically since ...22 june 1941,and,another policy would change nothing .
About the Jews of Hungary,the importance of which was much bigger than the one of the Jews in Germany :their extermination would be bad for Hungary,but,this was not the concern of the Germans:if they were exterminated or not,this would not influence of the outcome of the war .
I know that the "enthusiast" welcome of the Germans has been discussed on this forum,but,several years ago (I remember that Kunikov was intervening),it also has been discussed on the Armchair General Forum(more recently)

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#169

Post by BDV » 24 Jul 2012, 19:56

Well, for one I see a direct link between:

a) the antisemitic policies of Nazi Germany in Germany, in the conquered countries, and 'encouraged' in the vassal states, which led to enormous disruptions in economy,
and
b) the sorry materiel state of german forces at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk.

But, if wrong, I'd very much like to see this refuted.

:|
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#170

Post by Qvist » 25 Jul 2012, 08:10

BDV wrote:Well, for one I see a direct link between:

a) the antisemitic policies of Nazi Germany in Germany, in the conquered countries, and 'encouraged' in the vassal states, which led to enormous disruptions in economy,
and
b) the sorry materiel state of german forces at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk.

But, if wrong, I'd very much like to see this refuted.

:|
Er, to see what refuted? I'm sorry, but I don't see the argument involved. What do you mean by "sorry materiel state", and how do you think this was caused by antisemitic policies?

User avatar
Mr.No one
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 16 Jun 2012, 11:20
Location: Denmark

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#171

Post by Mr.No one » 25 Jul 2012, 11:57

Sorry for disrupting...

Regarding the topic:

Glantz says something like this:
"the Battle of Moscow indicated that Germany wasn't going to win the war;the Battle of Stalingrad indicated that Germany was going to lose the war,the only question remaining was how badly;and finally the Battle of Kursk indicated that the Red Army would win the war and only when an unconditionally surrender had been signed by the German Armed Forces"

Sources:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg

Regards,Séan
Believe in truth!

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#172

Post by Qvist » 25 Jul 2012, 12:43

Not a bad summation by Glantz, if one is going to stick to the notion of the traditional "decisive" battles that apparently retain an unloosened grip on the public mind. Though strictly speaking, I personally prefer rejecting the notion of decisive battles in the East, on the grounds that there weren't any.

User avatar
Mr.No one
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 16 Jun 2012, 11:20
Location: Denmark

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#173

Post by Mr.No one » 25 Jul 2012, 13:26

Qvist wrote:Not a bad summation by Glantz, if one is going to stick to the notion of the traditional "decisive" battles that apparently retain an unloosened grip on the public mind. Though strictly speaking, I personally prefer rejecting the notion of decisive battles in the East, on the grounds that there weren't any.

Agreed

I have never been completely convinced by the claims that Germany had a real chance of winning the war although some historians claim so(http://www.globeatwar.com/book/why-germ ... war-europe)

Rather I think the German Eastern Front campaign was like a down-going curve for the German Forces while the opposite was true for the Red Army..

As so the three battles in question symbolized the growing efficiency of the Red Army and the greater attrition for the German Army..

Regards,Séan
Believe in truth!

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#174

Post by BDV » 25 Jul 2012, 15:09

Qvist wrote:Er, to see what refuted?
That german antisemitic policy did NOT create serious economic disruptions.

P.S.

e.g. the ironic link between Magda Goebbels' complaint that ain't a decent tailor left in Berlin (as per all of them being Jewish) and Adolf's troops freezing their ass (literally) at the front cca December '41 as per lack of winter coats.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#175

Post by Qvist » 25 Jul 2012, 20:48

BDV wrote:
Qvist wrote:Er, to see what refuted?
That german antisemitic policy did NOT create serious economic disruptions.
It is logically impossible prove that (as it is for any negative), which doesn't say anything about whether it is true or not. You'd have to make a case that it did cause serious economic disruptions, and if it can't be shown to have, then there is no reason to assume it did. For my part, I have some difficulty seeing any very obvious way in which might have had such an effect, other than depriving the German war effort of a potentially significant labour pool. The material resources that were owned by Jews did not disappear when they were taken from their rightful owners, and nor was it possible for emigres to bring significant financial resources with them.
e.g. the ironic link between Magda Goebbels' complaint that ain't a decent tailor left in Berlin (as per all of them being Jewish) and Adolf's troops freezing their ass (literally) at the front cca December '41 as per lack of winter coats.
Well, maybe Magda Goebbels musings about coats is not the best of measures for this issue.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Antisemitic follies

#176

Post by BDV » 26 Jul 2012, 16:26

Qvist wrote: It is logically impossible prove that [german antisemitic policy did NOT create serious economic disruptions](as it is for any negative), which doesn't say anything about whether it is true or not.
When Miklos Ő Főméltósága a Magyar Királyság Kormányzója Horthy says:
Since, however, one of the most important tasks of the government is to raise the standard of living, i.e., we have to acquire wealth, it is impossible, in a year or two, to replace the Jews, who have everything in their hands, and to replace them with incompetent, unworthy, mostly big-mouthed elements, for we should become bankrupt.
I take that at face value. So accounting for the time Nagybanyai made his statement, he likely believed that, and my personal experience makes me agree with the "we should become bankrupt" conclusion.

You'd have to make a case that it did cause serious economic disruptions, and if it can't be shown to have, then there is no reason to assume it did. For my part, I have some difficulty seeing any very obvious way in which might have had such an effect, other than depriving the German war effort of a potentially significant labour pool. The material resources that were owned by Jews did not disappear when they were taken from their rightful owners, and nor was it possible for emigres to bring significant financial resources with them.
Indeed we are (I hope the censors will not demur) in a setting similar to this, a patient questions a doctor's 1000 US$ charge for a simple operation that consisted of placing one screw in a bone. Then the physician remits a detailed bill, that breaks down the charge as:
Titanium Screw _______________25 US$
Knowing how to screw it in_____975 US$


If you discount jewish know-how, then the problem is indeed insignificant. However, you CANNOT discount the jewish know-how.

For a look on the impact on the healthcare system:

Death of Medicine in Nazi Germany. Impact on the german army operations from excluding 16% of the physicians from service - can only be speculated upon.

In Romania 500 of the 1000 surgeons were jewish, and unceremoniously kicked out of service by Ion-"better dead than treated by a zhyd"-Antonescu. As Romania took 90,000 casualties in one boondoggle (Odessa) alone in something like 75 days of fighting, having an extra 500 surgeons available was bound to lead to a few thousand soldier's lives saved. How many? 5? 10? 15? One can only speculate, but the impact was not trivial.


I am not aware of a systematic study of the economic effects, but we can start with the size of the Kristallnacht fine (1 billion RM, 10% of jewsh wealth), and by applying some reasonable multipliers (the wealth created over average of 25 years, with a jews retaining an average of 20% of the wealth created), we arrive to a sum of ~2 billion RM for the wealth created per annum by the jewish community in the DeutschReich, alone. Accounting for the conquered+vassal Europe economy, one easily accounts for 4-8 billion RM per annum as a measure of economic impact. Even with a 50% penalty for blockade effects, it's still a hefty tab of 2-4 billion RM for the Nazi antisemitic follies.

e.g. the ironic link between Magda Goebbels' complaint that ain't a decent tailor left in Berlin (as per all of them being Jewish) and Adolf's troops freezing their ass (literally) at the front cca December '41 as per lack of winter coats.

Well, maybe Magda Goebbels musings about coats is not the best of measures for this issue.
No, the number of Ostfront frostbite cases (228 thousand per Albert Seaton's The German Army, 1933-45, via a Sid Guttridge post at Feldgrau), a much better one.
Last edited by BDV on 26 Jul 2012, 18:03, edited 1 time in total.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#177

Post by ljadw » 26 Jul 2012, 17:58

The number of frostbite cases by Seaton has been contradicted on this forum (German casualties in Barbarossa thread):
number of casualties by sickness,accidents ,frostbite,etc
december 1941:91000
january 1942:128000
february:85000
march:63000
Total :367000
Thus ,228000 for frostbite only is very questionable.
BTW: I have the greatest doubts on a source,if the author is saying that the Jews have everything in their hands .

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#178

Post by BDV » 26 Jul 2012, 18:04

ljadw,

Do you know who Horthy was?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk which was more decisive?

#179

Post by ljadw » 26 Jul 2012, 19:27

Yes:but,if he said that the Jews had all in their hands,he was talking rubbish.
It was not so that in 1941,Hungary was economically dominated by the Jews.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Economic Impact of Antisemitism

#180

Post by BDV » 26 Jul 2012, 19:57

Point being that even a fervent antisemite like Horthy noted the economic disruption brought upon by an exterminatorial ("eliminate") antisemitic policy. Given that he was a chief of state, I think this asessment should carry some weight.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”