What went so wrong?

Russian winter, Incompetent and traitorous officers/generals who intentionally sabotaged the war effort, and miscalculations. Hitler said that if he had known how many tanks the Soviets had in their arsenal he never would have invaded during the summer of 1941.

Germany's only chance to crush the Soviet bear died when their army was repulsed from Moscow during the Soviet winter offensive of 41/42. A war of attrition against Russia while simultaneously fighting on multiple fronts against Britain and America decided the outcome of the war before it had even ended. The fact that they held out for years against the might of the industrial powers of the world is an impressive feat, but Germany still lost in the end and that's all that really matters.

The Germans should've let the soviets attack first then countered like in ww1, why would smaller nation decide to attack a larger one, surely a defensive war would be easier?

I feel like we have this thread every day

Well then they'd have to wait for a potential attack which might never happen, giving the Soviets time to prepare thus giving the Soviets the advantage.

I'm not sure how you could give Hitler credit for France, he didn't care for the Manstein Plan to begin with. It was also quite conventional and was in all serious respects a reenactment of the Schlieffen Plan, only this time it caught the French flat-footed as the high command had refused to listen to dissenting advisers telling them the Ardennes were passable by armor.

The plan was pants on head stupid from the beginning.
youtu.be/A_3R-Rkn_98

wasn't stalingrad a source of oil for he vehicles?

Time was not on the Nazi's side

They thought they could fuck ruskies before the,cold.

many factors, including:

downright awful intelligence on the USSR, German spies were unable to get their hands on any tangible military data, and were caught offguard by just how effective KV-1 and T-34 tanks were at resisting all German firepower at the time, as well as the sheer number of all military equipment the Soviets were cranking out between 1939 and 1941 went unknown by the Germans.

severely underestimating the USSR's ability to replace losses. It was the German's original assumption that the Soviets only had enough equipment and resources to arm about 150 divisions. 100 active and 50 reserve. The Soviet ended up arming and fielding the equivalent of over 600 divisions by mid-1942, and close to 900 by the end of the war. The Germans accounted for Russian manpower reserves, but never thought they could produce enough rifles, food, and equipment for over 16 million soldiers.

The crimes carried out against civilians during the operation. Plenty of Ukrainians and Estonians/Latvians/etc were welcoming of the Germans initially, and some were even willing to join the Germans in their offensive. While Germany later attempted to use them when the war went south to little effect, all love the occupied peoples had for Germany vanished quickly as atrocities mounted and it became clear that Germany was looking to exterminate the population. The partisan war against Germany became a thorn in the side of Germany for the entire war because of their policies against the civilians.

Military History Visualized has a great video on all the major errors made during the operation, definitely check it out.

youtube.com/watch?v=A_3R-Rkn_98

great video
No, and that's the worst irony: Stalingrad was a diversion from the oil fields. The generals wanted the fields, but Hitler wanted the city named after his hated rival.

What is this? Was figurine on the table a replica of his erect penis? It appears to have a pee hole (meatus) a little below the glans (head), since it is believed that he had hypospadias. The scrotum also looks a little narrow like it only had one testicle. What else could the Sculpture be if not?

kill yourself /leftypol/

what's the matter, /pol/? Are people picking on Uncle Adolf again?

stop trying to force your shitty memes faggot you've been at this for months now

>muh hitlers babbydick

Hitler was allowed to make decisions instead of being a figurehead.

I'm not even that guy, I'm just completely amused by the way it triggers you like a Tumblrina

I am triggered reeeeeee.

*blocks your path*

...

That's a weird map

Only because we do

This nigger

> muh winter won the war!
Barbarossa started on June 22, literally the furthest day from winter.

Ya and the war ended in September 1945. You know, 3 winters later?

Stalin was a military and economic genius. Anyone else in his place would have lost the war.

Impossible for this to have happened without Stalins massive industrialization beggining in the 1930

Meant for

You're stupid.

You invade in mid-Spring, just after the roads become passable again in Ukraine - assuming the weather cooperates.

>military
No he wasn't. The point in time when he exercised the most control over the military was early in the war, which is coincidentally when the Soviets suffered all of their most disastrous defeats.
>Economic
No not really. Anyone can jump start an economy when lives are disposable and you have no opposition from inside your government.

Stalin unlike Hitler knew when to listen to his generals. An arrogant kike like Trotsky would never do this. Also I dare you to name a more rapid period of industrialization in history. Except for Meiji Japan nothing else comes even close.

>military
>implying
That's Zhukov and Rokossovsky
>economic
You sound like a fried of mine who's 1/4 Russian. She's a huge Stalin apologist, despite the fact her grandma was a noble and emigrated.

All those famines as a direct result of collectivization doesn't sound like a very good economic policy to me.

all the invasions as a direct result of taking lots of loans with no intention of paying back doesn't sound like a very good economic policy to me either.

The Germans had very precise weapons, which didn't not do to well in the cold. The Russians, however, had very sloppy weapons which were alot more reliable. A more modern example could be the ak47, which was used against American soldiers in the Vietnam War, and korea(correct me if I'm wrong)anx has remained relatively unchanged. The m16 made by mattell was very unreliable at the beginning of the Vietnam War. The Russians just make reliable weapons that have alot of slop to them, but they aren't temperamental like German or US ones.

>but the strenght of russia was the big unknown

well known myth and propaganda spread by angloshits:
>muh lend lease
not even in place at that time
>muh cold and muh mud
mud delayed soviets just as well, the cold was an additional factor of german attrition but not the sole reason of defeat
>muh siberian fresh division
only a few were mobilizied and sent to the western front

it was a foolish attempt to "knock" out the USSR by one big punch, instead they crippled themselfs while fighting a badly led and disorganized army

turning it into a merciless war where the geneva convention didnt apply also helped the USSR because their soldiers often fought on despite encirclement, taking valuable german resources with them

>correct me if I'm wrong
You are wrong. Chinks and dinks were using SKS, Nuggets, and leftover WWII stocks from the Soviets and U.S.

Never claimed that it was, good job changing the subject though.

>Lose 2 World Wars
>Still Ruled Europe and the World

Americans are stupid
Poor bastards

"All those" famines? Name another famine during Stalin, there was only one in 1932. After collectivization, there were no more famines whereas under the Tsar they happened all the time

>An arrogant kike like Trotsky would never do this.

lol, besides running the actual army Trotsky always got flak for listening to ex-Tsarist military specialists.

1947

Blame Hitler not Stalin. Without Barbarossa there would be no famine in 1947

>The Germans had GREAT racially pure weapons but because of a small misfortune and circumstances that nobody could have foreseen were rendered temporary unusable
> The russians had subhuman inferior weapons that due to random coincidence managed to work despite their overall low quality due to sheer luck

Funny, since all the experts on the subject state that Stalin and the Soviet government bore most of the responsibility for the famine and that the lingering effects of the war only contributed but did not cause it.

Must be the peasant's luck comrade

>The m16 made by mattell was very unreliable at the beginning of the Vietnam War
This is a myth btw. The Mattell M16 wasn't that bad. The issue was that supply didn't issue cleaning kits on purpose so over time the fucking things jammed. If you watch mud test videos comparing Mattell M16s with AKs of the same era, the M16 actually performs better.

Sure thing Shlomo

Giving yourself multiple fronts and then micromanaging the war when you were nothing but a lowly corporal with little true military leadership experience.

Stalin killed a ton of his generals in the 30s for not being loyal enough.

They also issued ammunition with the wrong type of gunpowder because the Army Materiel Command was in bed with the manufacturer.
gundigest.com/reviews/the-ar-16m16-the-rifle-that-was-never-supposed-to-be

This wouldn't have been a problem had cleaning kits been supplied. Sure, it was more corrosive than the proper ammo, but if the rifle was properly maintained, it wouldn't have mattered. The issue, first and foremost, was because supply didn't do their fucking jobs. Your article even notes that fact.

>What went so wrong?
The genetic inferiority of the german race.

No shelter for the German troops when the winter came.

No winter supplies for there German troops because Hitler thought they would conquer the Rus before winter.

The Germans were extremely efficient, but we're ironically betrayed by their superiors who over estimated their own men.

Plus, the Rus put up a hell of a fight in some cities.

>but we're ironically betrayed by their superiors who over estimated their own men.
>we're

>Stalin was an economic genius
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHAHAAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahaAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mud season, and all the mud tracks were in France.

>What went so wrong?
Rail logistics.

Suggest you read Strauss Soviet Russia: Anatomy of a Social History ( www.marxistsfr.org/archive/strauss/index.htm ).

Strauss is critical of the Soviet Union for underproduction in canning and textiles btw.

Not him but did you seriously recommend a book from fucking 1941 that cites fucking PRAVDA for economic stats and is archived on a fucking MARXIST WEBSITE as an unbiased historiography of the interwar economy of the Soviet Union? Are you fucking shitting me? Get out. Seriously, get the fuck out. You have no fucking place here, you triple thick nigger.

I can host it on Stormfront if you prefer it.

Yes. Read the fucking book. Nove/Millar cite similar sources, and Strauss goes into detail in the GAZ (Ford) plant vs. Consumer production problems and underfulfilment in soft industries.

Wow, you sure made legitimate source criticism invalid by calling me a Nazi. I guess I'll just show myself out now.

Pass. I'll read something that is A.) More Current and B.) Doesn't cite literal Soviet fucking propaganda for economic stats

So read Nove/Millar or Fitzpatrick or Andrle you stupid coose.

Or, you know, R.W. Davies. Someone who doesn't cite fucking Pravda.

>R.W. Davies
>YUP
I have better things to do with my time than read Congress of Captive Nations propaganda.

Yeah, like read stats directly from the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, you tankie fuck. You should have at least tried to continue your facade of non-bias.

You don't seem to appreciate how in 1941 the careful reading of Pravda could result in a critical evaluation of underfulfilment in strategic sectors. You are unfamiliar with Nove/Millar. You have no basis to engage in source criticism in soviet economics.

>You don't seem to appreciate how in 1941 the careful reading of Pravda could result in a critical evaluation of underfulfilment in strategic sectors
You don't seem to recognize the fact Strauss' book is intentionally up playing Stalin due to the geopolitical circumstances. Jesus, the fucking preface and postscript spells it out for you.

>Millar
I'm familiar, actually. Considering his last book on Soviet Economics came out before the fall of the Soviet Union, whereas Davies last book came out AFTER, I'd say Davies book is more reliable. You will proceed to handwave this fact away.

>You have no basis to engage in source criticism in soviet economics
Ah yes, the default tankie argument. That you aren't allowed to criticize sources but they're allowed to criticize your sources all they like. You fuck off.

>YUP YUP YUP
Fuck off mate. If you're incapable of reading Strauss then stick with the econ faculty and don't bother with any field where you have to read against bias, like the economic history of the soviet union.

>[fall of the soviet union relevant to the Bukharin debate]
You do realise that Fitzpatrick got open archives during the period when they were open? Yeah nah, you don't even know about the archival openings.

Strauss is free, non-sectarian, and based on a critical reading of gross economic statistics that recapitulate nove/millar before it happened.

the southwest of the soviet union is the only important part. St. Petersburg and Moscow were not strategically important.

>Fuck off mate. If you're incapable of reading Strauss then stick with the econ faculty and don't bother with any field where you have to read against bias, like the economic history of the soviet union.
>IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I POSTED OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE JUST NOT COMMIE ENOUGH TO READ IT FOR WHAT IT IS INSTEAD OF SEEING THE OUTRIGHT STATED BIAS IN THE PREFACE AND POST SCRIPT
Great argument.

>more memery proving you didn't actually fucking read what I wrote
The irony here is that I outright stated that you were going to handwave it away and you did. The double irony is that you move on to Fitzpatrick for Stalin's planned economy when her entire historiographical revision is about shifting focus away from the state. Seriously fuck off.

>Strauss is free, non-sectarian, and based on a critical reading of gross economic statistics
>non-sectarian
Sure, but not unbiased.

>based on a critical reading
Nope

>free
The only truth you stated here.

>unbiased
Back to the department of sociology with you.

I think that's a sufficient criticism of your historiographical skills.

>calls one historian biased
>proceeds to tell someone else to go to a sociology department because they (rightfully) called your historian biased after source criticism

You do realise that entry level historiography is that all sources are biased?

First year level. Or in a UK system A/12 Level

Yes, but only one of us is actively recognizing that fact. In fact, there is also only one of us willing to mitigate bias through source criticism to the best of our ability. I'll give you a hint to which one of us it is: Not the one who's foremost source at this point is a purposeful up play of Stalin that cites fucking the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as its primary source for economic statistics of the Soviet Union.

Yeah, read Strauss mate instead of fucking your Captive Nations wank stick. Its a great work of economic history from an anti-stalinist com. Being reliant of Pravda in 1941 puts him well ahead of the game of liberals and trots in 1941.

You're blind to the field.

>Everyone who isn't a commie apologist is a stormfag

I can't believe I fell for your bullshit this entire time. You got me, Auscunt. Well played. You overplayed your hand right here though, the trolling shone through like a flashlight through Australian beer.

>I drink sheaf
Read Strauss. It is great on plan failures.

Holy shit, you were serious. I can't believe you were fucking serious. Seriously neck yourself. Everything you've posted so far has been called out.

What about more recent studies?

>called out
YUP YUP YUP. Can't read a source in context.

Enjoy failing honours.

Scroll up. He handwaves those away because they don't fit his narrative.

This would make sense if the context wasn't spelled out for you in the preface and post-script. I even pointed it out to you, but you ignored it. You've ignored everything at this point. I'm done here since I need to leave for work. You can declare victory from my bowing out if you like, but just remember that everyone can see your stupidity for as long as this thread is alive and/or archived. It truly is a monument to Marxist historiography.

Andrle. Fitzpatrick.

Hey lads, retard here. Why didn't they do a naval assault on Lenin and Stalingrad?

Mines; River assaults being bridging.

>try to gain living space
> lose land
What did the German army mean by this

Amphibious assaults are very difficult to pull off.

In addition to Stalingrad isn't even on the sea. The Volga is to the east of the city, meaning to do an amphibious assault, you'd need to go around it, assemble barges or other river transport, and attack from the far side instead of just attacking overland from the direction you're coming from.