What went wrong?

> There is no such thing if you're a brainlet.
So how "defensive" army is different from "offensive" one? Keep in mind that strategic defense involves a lot of maneuvering and counter offenses, like at Stalingrad and Kursk.

What use are fucking thousands of hundreds of paratroopers for defensive, huh? Or tanks build for railroads, which were almost non-existant in Soviet Union?

The whole 1930s to 1940s Stalin was preparing army that would do good in the West.

Hitler autistically overruling his generals was a major factor

>On 3 August, Hitler temporarily cancelled the drive on Moscow in favor of driving south and attacking Kiev in Ukraine. However, on 12 August 1941, Supplement to Directive No. 34 was issued, and it represented a compromise between Hitler, who was convinced the correct strategy was to clear the salient occupied by Soviet forces on right flank of Army Group Center in the vicinity of Kiev before resuming the drive to Moscow, and Halder, Bock and Guderian, who advocated an advance on Moscow as soon as possible. The compromise required 2nd and 3rd Panzer Groups of Army Group Centre, which were redeploying in order to aid Army Group North and Army Group South respectively, be returned to Army Group Centre, together with the 4th Panzer Group of Army Group North, once their objectives were achieved. Then the three Panzer Groups, under the control of Army Group Center, would lead the advance on Moscow.

>On 18 August, OKH submitted a strategic survey (Denkschrift) to Hitler regarding the continuation of operations in the East. The paper made the case for the drive to Moscow, arguing once again that Army Groups North and South were strong enough to accomplish their objectives without any assistance from Army Group Center. Pointing out that there was only enough time left before winter to conduct a single decisive operation against Moscow.

>On 20 August, Hitler rejected the proposal based on the idea that the most important objective was to deprive the Soviets of their industrial areas. On 21 August Jodl of OKW issued a directive, which summarized Hitler's instructions, to Brauchitsch commander of the Army. The paper reiterated that the capture of Moscow before the onset of winter was not a primary objective.

>Halder was dismayed, and later described Hitler's plan as "utopian and unacceptable".

This, they were getting ready to liberate Europe all the way to the coast of France and go down in history as the good guys

>railroads,
Meant highways but whatever

>Paratroopers
I've heard of hundreds of divisions being deployed, but paratroopers? Do you have a source for that?

Nah, all the resources they plundered actually helped them out a lot. They were screwed from the get go.

He pulled this shit again during Fall Blau

>Believing that the main Soviet threat had been eliminated, desperately short of oil and needing to meet all the ambitious objectives of Case Blue, Hitler made a series of changes to the plan in Führer Directive No. 45 on July 23, 1942:

>Reorganized Army Group South into two smaller Army Groups, A and B;
>Directed Army Group A to advance to the Caucasus and capture the oil fields (Operation Edelweiß);
>Directed Army Group B to attack towards the Volga and Stalingrad (Operation Fischreiher).

>The new directive created enormous logistical difficulties, with Hitler expecting both Army Groups to advance along different routes. Logistics lines were already at breaking point with ammunition and fuel shortages most apparent and it would be impossible to advance using the conservative supply rates he demanded. The divergence of the Army Groups would also open a dangerous gap between the Armies, which could be exploited by the Russians.

>The splitting of Army Group South enabled the launching of Operation Edelweiss and Operation Fischreiher, the two main thrusts of the Army Groups. Both groups had to achieve their objectives simultaneously, instead of consecutively.

>The success of the initial advance was such that Hitler ordered the Fourth Panzer Army south to assist the First Panzer Army to cross the lower Don river.

>This assistance was not needed and Kleist later complained that Fourth Panzer Army clogged the roads and that if they had carried on toward Stalingrad, they could have taken it in July. When it turned north again two weeks later, the Soviets had gathered enough forces together at Stalingrad to check its advance.

>I've heard of hundreds of divisions being deployed, but paratroopers? Do you have a source for that?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Airborne_Troops
They were literally jerking off to Paratroop divisions during 1930s. People were starving and they were building towers for parachuting lmao.

Most armies in the world had paratroopers, what is that supposed to prove? Are you autistic?

Read Suvorov's works on SU. They were arming for an offensive war.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

I have read Icebreaker entirely, I know of Suvorov's thesis

Yeah, these are called "counter-offenses". No modern army would just sit there waiting to be kicked again and again, even Germans went into one in December 1944. This is why there's no difference in "offensive" and "defensive" army from the technical point, the difference is in the midset of the commanders.

> What use are fucking thousands of hundreds of paratroopers for defensive, huh?
Disrupting the enemy's rear, supporting break-out from pockets, special operations, counter-offenses like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyazma_airborne_operation . Soviets used paratroopers a lot before they shifted to strategic offensive in 1943, so I guess they're useful.
> Or tanks build for railroads, which were almost non-existant in Soviet Union?
You can't even get your facts right, m8. I guess you mean BT-7, which was quite fast while moving on highways, just like every other cavalry tank at the time. Again, being fast doesn't mean it was designed for offense, because it's not like the speed of tanks were the limiting factor. Being fast meant it could be moved along the front easily to exploit holes in enemy's lines, and go into counter-offensive when the time was right.

>Citing Sovorov unironically
I should have known from the start.

If the Japanese never did Pearl Harbor and America never entered the war, the Axis would've won.

No.

Hitler had already lost the war in the East singlehandedly by overruling his generals by the time America got involved.

The Germans had a limited window of opportunity to capture Moscow and Stalingrad before the onset of winter and he fucked it up.

After that it was only a matter of time before the Soviets steamrolled all the way to Berlin. The Americans simply relieved some of the pressure by opening a second front.

t. tankie

> declaring war to everyone

Yes

> conquering every country in Europe wasted resources

No. Actually, France and Czechoslovakia helped greatly with amunitions and other cool stuff.

>Or tanks build for railroads,

Found the rezunoid.
Name the model.

1. Germans were nowhere near Stalingrad in the winter of 1941.
2. Attempting to capture Moscow would result in even greater disaster than Stalingrad.
3. Capturing victory point doesn't automatically win a war, this is not HoI.
4. If Germans would have ignored Kiev and rushed Moscow they would have left a huge force ready to strike them in the flank. Again, real life isn't HoI, rushing VPs isn't a good strategy, destroying enemy's army is.

>implying the diversion to ukraine was a blunder
If you don't go south then that army counter attacks and surrounds you when you make a push on Moscow.

>You can't even get your facts right, m8. I guess you mean BT-7

A-20 had literally A letter, for "Autobahn"!
Obviously sarcasm.

t. faggot who unironically cites the "Autobahn tank" meme.

>army build for offensive, not defensive
Tell me about all those offensive fortification lines like Stalin´s and Molotov´s line.
You can say that countries like Belgium had "defensive army" - army that isnt supposed to fight back on enemy´s territory and is supposed to hold the line until the allies arrive, surprisingly, Soviet union was the hugest country in the world.
Fall Blau was autism from start, they couldnt capture the oil undemaged, its not that hard to destroy the mining equipment and Soviets would definitely do it, Reaching Baku could be probably even a good thing for Soviets because Germs would overextend their already overextended frontline and supply lines which could cause creation of "Caucasus pocket" with hundreds of thousands of trapped Krauts.
Suvorov literally used fake or edited Quotes in that book, its not considered to be a realiable sourse outside of /pol/

when Germany failed to defeat the soviets by winter 1941 they were finished

give this video a watch, it does a good job showing the critical manpower shortage the Germans faced after Barbarossa failed
youtube.com/watch?v=caoxNSNcQZs

It would be impossible to win even if they managed to take Moscow, Germ war strategy was purely autistic and everyone saw them as invaders they were.

>1. Germans were nowhere near Stalingrad in the winter of 1941.
They were within striking distance of Moscow, if they had focused there from the beginning, Stalingrad would have followed a year later.

>2. Attempting to capture Moscow would result in even greater disaster than Stalingrad.
[Citation needed]

>3. Capturing victory point doesn't automatically win a war, this is not HoI.
Who said anything about HoI?
Moscow was one of the main arms manufacturing centers in Russia, the central point of its rail network, and it would have dealt a huge morale blow to the Russian army which was already disorganized and stunned before the Winter Offensive allowed them to regain the initiative.

>4. If Germans would have ignored Kiev and rushed Moscow they would have left a huge force ready to strike them in the flank. Again, real life isn't HoI, rushing VPs isn't a good strategy, destroying enemy's army is.
Army Group South could have dealt with Kiev alone.

Lend-Lease. Even Stalin admitted it.

germany had half the GNP of the USA at the start of the war. this was with Germany's economy rising and considered good. while the US economy was still crippled by depression.

citation needed
Even Glantz said it wasnt that relevant.

From Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs:
"I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so."

Can't post link due to Veeky Forums's spam filter byt just search the quote and you'll find an edition of the e-book.

>[citation needed]
The attempt to capture Stalingrad resulted in a disaster.
Moscow was a larger, better-prepared city with most of the Soviet armies concentrated around it.
Ergo, an attempt to take Moscow would have degenerated into street warfare in the frozen city, something Germans had little hope to win.
>Moscow was one of the main arms manufacturing centers in Russia
Not the only one tho. Besides, both Stalingrad and Leningrad continued to produce arms during the sieges.
>the central point of its rail network
This is the only real issue here, but I'm not sure how important it would have been.
>and it would have dealt a huge morale blow to the Russian army which was already disorganized and stunned before the Winter Offensive allowed them to regain the initiative
Disorganized, yes, but was far from being morally broken.
>Army Group South could have dealt with Kiev alone.
Maybe, maybe not.

>Those two pockets on the Gulf of Finland

Why didn't he crush them like every other pocket?

>what is the Siege of Leningrad
More civilians died in these "pockets" than total civilian deaths of France, Belgium, Netherlands, and UK combined.

Siege of Leningrad is severely underrated, where are all the movies and documentaries?

Name two countries germany declared war on?

except the germans still had the upper hand and even in air force power in 1941, so a stalingrad style battle would have probably been more successful in moscow than 1942-3 stalingrad with alot more stretched resources

Socialist states are guaranteed to fail, even when they're fighting other socialist states

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II :
Poland
Denmark
Norway
Belgium
Netherlands
Luxemburg
Greece
Yugoslavia
Egypt(wtf?)
Soviet Union
US
Vichy France(why?)
Finland

>Below is a table showing the Outbreaks of Wars

>It doesn't count if you attack without formal declaration of war
Pol-tard are really retarded. But still, you can see that Germany bothered to formally declare war on Belgium, Netherlands, Greece, the US, which is more than 2.

Khrushchev was autistic Ukrainian kike that got his position by likcing people´s ass, he isnt legitime historian unlike Glantz

Khrushchev was autistic Ukrainian kike that got his position by licking people´s ass, he isnt legitime historian unlike Glantz

Khrushchev was Russian ethnically, he was only born in Ukraine.

Poland, US, Britain, Greece come to mind.

What happened to the small countries like Liechtenstein, Monaco and Andorra during the war?

they thought they were doing so well that in order to make it a fair fight they decided to take a 9 month haitus from the war giving the soviets a much needed respite

i think lichtenstein got annexed by germany, mussolini probably eyed up monaco if he didn't annex it anyway. Andorra, nothing i don't think

Nothing.

>tfw no one brings up Adam tooze's wages of destruction, which deconstructs the nazi failure effectively as a matter of economics

Nazi racial ideology + nazi economi incompetence doomed their efforts in the east

San Marino helped many Jews, so many that the entire nation got a Medal from Israel later.

t. jewish professor

(((truth)))

Tooze shows how the nazis serially betrayed anti communist forces in the east, mismanaged their economy by overheating it to the breaking point, and relied on slave labor out of desperation.

Do you have anything aside from ad-hom as a response

>fight Germany because you're worried about Russia stealing your Indian colony
>lose your entire Empire postwar anyway

Bravo Albion, truly a force to be reckoned with.

They didn't plant enough mines in Denmark

Actually I just checked and he wasn't even born in Ukraine, he was born in central Russia and both of his parents were ethnic Russians. So the only thing that makes him "Ukrainian" is the fact he lived in Ukraine for a while.

Logistics.

It's literally always ultimately logistics.

They fought Germany because having a repeat treaty breaking nutjob as ruler of Europe was seen as unacceptable.

Stalin (also a monster) for his part at least respected the pre-war agreements he signed

Even if there had been a perfect autobahn network running to every major city in Russia, the Germans could not have completed the conquest of the ussr before lend lease + manpower losses ground them down.

Also, as bears repeating, the nazi economy was a shitshow until 1943

> respected the pre-war agreements he signed

because he didn't have much of an army to begin with

True, but neither did hitler at the time he started ripping up treaties (German army in 38 was garbage)

>declaring war on Luxemburg
We should do that every year or so.
>easy victory
>boosts the moral of your country
>rape their qts
>steal their shits
>declare the evil duchy pacified
>leave them alone
>repeat...

Give me a single reason to not do that.

angry letters and international condemnation, not to mention the inbox raping of your embassy twitter account ?

mistake was not killing them all, like pussy Paulus

also, best borders there was in OP

not building the ostwall in 1941 and making it a grindfest for the soviets (as if it wasn't already), in which scenario as much resources they have from lend lease they would autistically send every last man and woman to their deaths against german heavy defenses

>Building static defenses in the age of mechanized warfare

What are you, french?

Anyways the German war economy needed for the krauts to go on the offense to either collapse the soviet state so they could loot it, of at the very least to seize oil fields

well its certainly a fresh idea though.

it would be a good backup plan, im sure it wouldn't have diverted much manpower and concrete to have people building ww1 tier defences in case shit went south with the offensives (pun intended)

>#notAllGermans

The German economy was running on a combination of loot and incompetence until Speer used slave labor to plug the holes in 43. The "Ostwall" at best would've cost the soviets another million casualties that they could afford, and at worst would've pinned down otherwise mobile here units much like Hitler's similarly stupid "fortress city" concept.

It would not help the Germans in a meaningful way, and hitler thought of it first.

and then whilst the soviets are bogged down on the line, spawn a secret army in finland and strike from the north towards moscow

brilliant

wasn't ww1 supposed to be the age of mechanized warfare?

there was artillery, planes and armored cars but it still got turned into trench warfare

Nope. The critical events for strategic mechanized warfare are:

improved communication gear, such as a radio in every tank, allowing for breakthroughs to be exploited

Mobile artillery/close air support, allowing strongpoints to be destroyed quickly before they impede the advance

Advances in engine technology, drastically improving the speed and reliability of air and land forces

T. Hoi4 pro

never played it, but i do like geography

Moscow had extremely extensive AA fortifications.

Krauts had literally no chance of winning.
>Attack soviets = lose no matter what
>Don't attack soviets = get invaded
Battle of Moscow was literally end of the war for germans. Even if krauts managed to take all of Caucasia with Baku and not lose in Stalingrad, they would still lose the war. Brits or soviets would just destroy/burn all the oil rig with planes right before kraut occupation.
Best chance krauts had was making was a giant stalemate in the east and it's unreal durring the winter.

If that autistic austrian artist was more smarter, he would try to befriend europe with defensive military treaties rather than invading them and having fever dreams of "Muh lebensraum on dem mofugin slavs n'shiet"

>Don't attack soviets = get invaded
Stop with this meme already, even that plan is from Zhukov, Stalin told him to fuck off.

Not him, and I don't believe Stalin had an attack planned, but I think it would have been possible for the UK to negotiate USSR's entry into the war, especially after the US would have gotten involved, so in one way or another Germany would have had to fight Soviets, under much more unfavourable terms than in June '41. The only way to prevent this would have been to get Stalin into the war with the UK, something he was very close to, by promising him India and the Near East for example.

>lend lease + manpower losses
Both of these are logistical issues

>kike that got his position by licking people´s ass
so almost every single politician in the world.
How insightful and mundane.

I agree that Khrushchev is Russian, but Kursk is near the border with Ukraine and according to the Imperial census of 1897, 22% of the population of the Kursk region spoke Ukrainian. In Southern Russia there were quite a few Ukrainians who were subsequently assimilated.

Pretty much, I agree.

Red-Black Alliance was Germany's best chance, but it would involve Nazis not being Nazis.

There's no such thing as an army built for defense in modern warfare.

>no Hans, we are the untermensch
>and then Hans was a mongol

>What went wrong?

America.

They had no chance to penetrate far enough to overthrow the URSS and it was much too dangerous to have a common border with them,what they would need is the spectacular success of early days in Barbarossa,and then switch to a defensive gear where they put a strategic line for the soviets to attack and them to counterattack
basically this would lead to massive soviet encirclements
this plan banks on not on the nazis winning but stalemating the soviets so hard that they would lose less badly

only thing Lend-Lease provided that was of any real effect was food, because most of the territory lost in barbossa was the SU only arable land

Would Normandy have gone differently if Spain was properly in the game on the Axis side?

Would've happened early, been easier for allies