jesk wrote: ↑18 Sep 2019, 21:07
Duncan_M wrote: ↑17 Sep 2019, 18:52
the issues of replacements not coming even close in sufficient numbers to replace losses of manpower or equipment, the blatant proof that all pre-war estimates and assumptions regarding the USSR political vulnerabilities and basically everything about the Red Army were false, how utterly out-of-the-loop senior German generals were about their own units' conditions (including Guderian, but definitely Halder, who really had no clue what was actually happening on the Ostfront), and of course, the major infighting between Hitler and the OKH and Ostheer commanders in strategic objectives and the duplicitous means in which Halder and others did in order to get what they had wanted from long before the invasion started, Moscow.
I am still lost on why anyone in hindsight believes taking Moscow temporarily (it would not have been permanent) would have changed the course of war, let alone ended it. Even at the time, summer to autumn 1941, the strategic policy to take Moscow was entirely questionable, especially if one assumes that doing so would end the war. Suffice to say, Moscow was not Warsaw and it was not Paris, taking that capital would not suddenly cause Stalin to sue for peace, which is what the generals assumed would happen. That assumption existed during the planning for Barbarossa and never changed throughout the campaign, no matter how much it became apparent that conditions were opposite of pre-war assumptions.
This is all absurd. Hitler prevented the Germans from fighting. 4 million Soviet soldiers were captured in 1941. In 1942, Hitler banned the assault on Moscow and Leningrad.
Hitler prevented the Germans from fighting whom exactly? Assaulting Leningrad, a gigantic and well defended city, would have destroyed German forces. Assaulting Moscow with only mobile divisions with no infantry army support and the point of culmination in terms of their supply lines, reinforcements,etc. What would taking Moscow have done? Mobile divisions were unable to assault countless other cities, but you think a dozen very weakened ones with little artillery support and few infantry were going to assault the largest city in Russia, at the same time Stavka was massing forces for a front level counterattack? ROFL
And you keep ranting about POWS captured in 1941 as if they meant anything. And while they were very impressive, they were not impressive enough because the Red Army was able to keep fighting, to turn to the offensive, when the Germans ran out of steam. The Red Army fielded 600 divisions in 1941 alone, and most weren't destroyed, especially west of the Dnieper, which is where they were all supposed to be destroyed to make Barbarossa work. Ergo, Barbarossa couldn't have worked. 4 million POWs was not even remotely enough, not even close.
You do not keep up with the discussions on the forum. "Halder’s strategic incompetence” is just a smile.
Because you have a crush on Halder doesn't mean everyone does. His reputation did well until historians actually bothered validating his post war claims, almost none of which hold up to any sort of scrutiny.
