slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (10/05/85)
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) writes: >2. When the Wermacht invaded the USSR on 22 June 1941 the Red Army was >vastly superior in numbers of men, tanks, and aircraft. The Germans >went through the Red Army like a hot knife through butter. I had always heard that the Germans penetrated Russia so quickly partially as a maneuver on the Russian's part. The usual tactic if you are a country with so much open space is to fall back, burning your fields as you go. The enemy is left with long supply lines (which they must use--since you have left them nothing useful in the burned over areas) You then wait until they slow down and start to starve and freeze to death (something which always comes eventually in the Russian winter). I know that the Russians used this technique effectively in the Napoleanic and First World Wars. I had thought that WWII saw them use the same technique. The eastern front was horrible for the German army. When the Russian army did stand, i.e. Stalingrad, they did well--Hitler was reportedly foaming at the mouth. And Hitler actually did worse than Napolean did--he never took Moscow. All this should not be taken as a reflection on your basic premise, which sounds quite possible, but which I do not have the information to judge for myself. -- Sue Brezden Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb AT&T Information Systems 11900 North Pecos Westminster, Co. 80234 (303)538-3829 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your god may be dead, but mine aren't. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (10/06/85)
>I had always heard that the Germans penetrated Russia so quickly >partially as a maneuver on the Russian's part. Not during WW2. In WW2 the Soviets (a more accurate word than Russians, I'm told by emigres) simply were unable to stop the Germans until the weather turned bad. >The usual tactic if you are a country with so much open space >is to fall back, burning your fields as you go. I think "usual" may be too strong a word. >The enemy is left with long supply lines (which >they must use--since you have left them nothing useful in the >burned over areas) Long supply lines are certainly a problem. >You then wait until they slow down and start >to starve and freeze to death (something which always comes eventually >in the Russian winter). The starvation and freezing was due to Hitler's usual irrationality. He thought he was going to win the campaign in the east in 6 weeks or so, therefore made no preparations for a winter campaign, until disaster had overtaken him (even then he often failed to deal with local conditions in an appropriate manner). >I know that the Russians used this technique effectively in the >Napoleanic and First World Wars. I think not so much in WW1, at least not on the same scale as during Napoleon's campaign. >I had thought that WWII saw them use the same technique. Not so much intentionally as by necessity. >The eastern front was horrible for the German army. Certainly true. But it could have been different. >When the Russian army did stand, i.e. Stalingrad, they did well Things are a little more complicated. The Soviets excelled in close combat, as in street fighting within a city. They were extremely tenacious in defense when given proper leadership. Hitler's obsession with taking Stalingrad directly was probably a misuse of German forces, whose superiority lay more in mobile warfare. The German failure at Stalingrad was also partially due to Hitler taking tactical command away from his generals to a certain extent (Paulus was not allowed by Hitler to break out of the ring, etc.), and due to information leaked through insecure encryption methods. The Soviet plan for encirclement of German forces at Stalingrad was based on knowledge of German plans gained from such sources. Goring's scheme for supplying Stalingrad from the air was another of the pipe dreams that contributed to the end of the 3rd Reich. >--Hitler was reportedly foaming at the mouth. And Hitler >actually did worse than Napolean did--he never took Moscow. Hitler was an amateur when it came to military affairs. He should also probably be classified as insane. His failure to take Moscow was not due to the Soviets so much as to his own bad judgement. The issue of doing better or worse than Napoleon doesn't seem to me to have much to do with whether Moscow was taken. The main thing is not taking certain geographic locations, but destroying the enemy miltary forces and war potential. I don't really think saying one or the other did "better or worse" makes much sense in the first place. They both lost in a disastrous manner.