Germanys biggest mistake

[ShAA]

Originally Posted by Desiree Clary

I would recommend you read Richard Overy's fine book, Why the Allies Won for an in-depth discussion of Soviet Russian morale. Much of it had to do with hatred of the German invaders and the atrocities they committed.

Haven't read this particular volume but I believe he expressed the same ideas in it as in his "Russia's War". A rather detailed analysis of the Soviet people's motivation and how they benefitted from the Soviet regime can be found in the opening chapters of Merridale's "Ivan's War". I would note that this book should be treated with extreme caution as despite its wealth of factual material, it's bizarrely biased.

[Indpavan]

Originally Posted by Desiree Clary

I would recommend you read Richard Overy's fine book, Why the Allies Won for an in-depth discussion of Soviet Russian morale. Much of it had to do with hatred of the Ger man invaders and the atrocities they committed.

Have read and read others -
I'd say hatred of invaders is coupled to love of Rodina - its physical Geography, the culture, their way of life all of which was threatned and in occupoied area destroyed.
So they fought and founght tenaciously and skilfully under the organizational lead of their govt. Surely none here would suggest a modern war could be won by bravery alone - its logistics and planned logitics that win wars.

[Full Monty]

Originally Posted by Indpavan

So they fought and founght tenaciously and skilfully under the organizational lead of their govt. Surely none here would suggest a modern war could be won by bravery alone - its logistics and planned logitics that win wars.

Logistics don't win wars, see Vietnam or Afghanistan.

[Roadkiller]

Originally Posted by Full Monty

Logistics don't win wars, see Vietnam or Afghanistan.

If we accept Von Clausewitz definition of war as, "... the continuation of politics by other means...", or to be complete in what he said:

"... We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception..."

Thus the end of WWII ("winning") was defined by the political instruments of the Allied powers as the "unconditional surrender" of their enemy.

Logistical superiority, achieved by a sufficient mobilization of national resources of these states was one tool used to achieve that end.

Was any formal political end state (i.e. "winning") formally presented as the goal in the two conflicts you mention? I think not, and thus you are correct, overwhelming logistic superiority didn't win those wars. But mostly because no one knows what "winning" meant

[Cult Icon]

One of the counterfactuals I have is this: "Would the SU survive if it was a democracy that possessed the same economic base as the 1941 SU"?

I doubt it for one. The Red Army would have been nowhere the size it was.

The Germans assumed that they would collapse like France did. And that was their mistake.

[ShAA]

Originally Posted by Cult Icon

One of the counterfactuals I have is this: "Would the SU survive if it was a democracy that possessed the same economic base as the 1941 SU"?

I doubt it for one. The Red Army would have been nowhere the size it was.

The Germans assumed that they would collapse like France did. And that was their mistake.

And it would've never managed to achieve the same level of heavy industry output in the first place. The people would've probably (?) been better off, having nicer homes, better furniture and more meat in their soups, but all of this would've been worthless in fighting an invading army.

[Full Monty]

Originally Posted by Roadkiller

Was any formal political end state (i.e. "winning") formally presented as the goal in the two conflicts you mention? I think not, and thus you are correct, overwhelming logistic superiority didn't win those wars. But mostly because no one knows what "winning" meant

The lack of a clear objective also 'trickles down' to the forces doing the fighting. Logistical superiority means nothing if the will to fight is lacking.

[Cult Icon]

Originally Posted by ShAA

And it would've never managed to achieve the same level of heavy industry output in the first place. The people would've probably (?) been better off, having nicer homes, better furniture and more meat in their soups, but all of this would've been worthless in fighting an invading army.

The US army was 175,000 strong (professionals) in 1939, and after much political wrangling, the draft in 1940 created a 'green' army of 1.4 million by the end of 1941.

Absolutely tiny compared to the Red Army, although we were protected by oceans. We also had no real armor formations that could compete with the Wehrmarcht.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by The Strategist

the armys determination can be questioned whe orders stating that deserters would be shot and having political commisars make sure the men fought and died were they stood rather then retreat.

Naturally, the Germans, too, shot deserters wholesale, so the German army's determination can be questioned, too, for the same reason.

[IronDuke]

Originally Posted by Cult Icon

One of the counterfactuals I have is this: "Would the SU survive if it was a democracy that possessed the same economic base as the 1941 SU"?

I doubt it for one. The Red Army would have been nowhere the size it was.

The Germans assumed that they would collapse like France did. And that was their mistake.

To be fair, though, would the Germans have fought under such odds and bombardment and for so long had they been a democracy?

Britain changed Leaders after Norway. On the German scales, Norway was little more than a minor skirmish.

The carnage on the eastern front was in part due to the fact that two vicious uncompromising men - who had complete control of their respective populations - were prepared to fight to the finish and take everyone with them.

Regards,
ID

[IronDuke]

Originally Posted by Michele

Naturally, the Germans, too, shot deserters wholesale, so the German army's determination can be questioned, too, for the same reason.

Sort of. German repression of this type accelerated as the war was lost. Given the battering they were taking, the Wehrmacht remained remarkably cohesive until the end. It was certainly the period Sept - 44 to May - 45 that saw the problems become significant, and the oppression was duly increased to meet it.

Regards,
ID

[AdrianE]

Originally Posted by Michele

Naturally, the Germans, too, shot deserters wholesale, so the German army's determination can be questioned, too, for the same reason.

There is a passage in Overy's "Why the Allies Won" that documents that the Nazi's shot more of their own men than the Soviets did.