Stalingrad remembered.

[JCG]

Keep the name, but it depends on the citizens. And well...I agree that the Russians could have handled the war by themselves. Probably it would have taken some months or years longer and surely it'd be bloodier, though.

[Sava]

David, you can launch into all the essays you want... you're still wrong

The Russian winter stopped Germany in it's tracks. It simply did not have the man power to occupy the Russian territory it took. And it certainly didn't have the supply chain in order to supply it's troops to go any farther than Stalingrad. Plus, by that time, the Soviets had already moved their T34 production East of the Urals (IIR). Germany would not have been able to destroy that industrial base, and Russia had more than enough manufacturing capacity to outbuild the Germans and many, many times the number of troops.

[David Floyd]

No one claimed Germany could occupy the Soviet Union. I'm just saying that the SU could not have defeated Germany without the US, and that the SU could have done no better than a stalemate, with Germany still occupying large amounts of Soviet territory in the Ukraine and Western Russia.

[Sava]

Trust me David, after the destruction that the Germans caused in invading Russia, there would be no stalemate. The Russians would send wave after wave, tank after tank until either they or the Germans lost. And with a higher tank manufacturing capacity and many more troops, Germany would not have been able to hold out. But it's irrelevant because it's not like the Western Front would remain quiet. The fact that it simply wasn't Germany vs. Russia is at the heart of the matter even though you want to make this a one on one bout. It's easy to think you're right when you play with outlandish hypotheticals, eh?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

It was a decisive battle but more a turning point than the most decisive.

Well forgive me my crappy English please. Yes, turning point sounds much more correct, I agree.

I found out recently that many civilians were hiding in the city throughout the battle. Another incredible story of survival.

Yes, remained people lived in "zemlyankah"- it's just big hole in the ground, because their homes were destroyed during bombardments.

Also the life expectancy of a Russian soldier at the height of the battle was 24 hours from the time they crossed the Volga. Russia paid a very heavy price.

Actually I started this thread because of my impression after the talk with my grandfather. He was in the hell's kitchen of Stalingrad battle. He was artilerist, he and people like him stoped advance of Mainstein's tanks.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Master Zen

Yes. Can you imagine the RAF and USAAF bombing its own cities? Slaughter is evil, slaughtering your own countrymen is the utmost evil and the utmost stupid.

Wait a minute...are you saying that Soviet airforces carped bombed Stalingrad to ruins and slaughtered population of its own citizens?
Btw, within first days of Luwftwafe carpet bombardments of Stalingrad iirc, 123 000 civilians were killed.

the US had guns AND chocolate. But chocolate doesn't win wars. With the casualty rate the soviets sustained, it was impossible to maitain the levels of training and experience the western allies had. Most western troops were crap before the entered combat. Most western troops were crap when they entered combat. Most western troops were crap after they entered combat. But after months in western europe, italy, burma and the pacific, the average western infantryman was far superior than the average soviet one.

I don't get it. Are you trying to say that Allied troops had more battle experience than Soviet troops?

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I wasn't aware the US conquered Tokyo, or the WW1 Allies conquered Berlin, or the colonial Americans conquered London, for example

Absolutely different wars. Hitler oredered to fight untill last man standing. They didn't want to surrender, no matter what.

Why the hell would we want to? Why not just go around the city, put a covering force there, and defeat armies in the field, eventually forcing the besieged city to run out of supplies?

Leningrad was under seige, in complete isolation since 1941 up to 1944. What makes you think that Germans would defend their capital less than Russians defended Leningrad? What makes you think that Soviets had so much time?

[Master Zen]

Serb:

I never said anything about the soviet air force bombing stalingrad. YOU mentioned Dresden as an atrocity comitted by the western allies and that through my point of view I am making it not seem so horrible. I said yes, killing your own citizens like Stalin did would be like the RAF and USAAF bombing its own cities.

And YES, I am saying the western allies on an individual basis had more battle experience than the soviets by the end of the war because of the simple fact that less of them were killed. Do the math. I must admit, however, that those Soviets which had survived many months of the war were far better than the allied ones. As late as 1944, the german/soviet kill ratio was 1:5 at least.

As for Leningrad, it was surrounded but the germans could not bypass it. It was an important junction which had to be taken because they were unable to advance any more to the north-east. Had the germans had the strenght to make it to northern russia, Leningrad would have surely been bypassed, unless of course, Hitler would have wanted it for being LENINgrad.

[DanS]

This really is none of our business, but since you asked... I would prefer not to see it renamed Stalingrad. Stalin's image has suffered after his death.

I wonder how much of Stalingrad really survived the battle.

[Serb]

Originally posted by DanS
This really is none of our business, but since you asked... I would prefer not to see it renamed Stalingrad. Stalin's image has suffered after his death.

Thant's why it was renamed to Volgograd. Today people who wants to rename it to Stalingrad again, don't care much about the name of Stalin, more about battle which ended there 60 years ago.

I wonder how much of Stalingrad really survived the battle.

A half of the dozen houses out of entire city. After the battle it was city of ruins.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Serb:

I never said anything about the soviet air force bombing stalingrad. YOU mentioned Dresden as an atrocity comitted by the western allies and that through my point of view I am making it not seem so horrible.

It wasn't me who said this, really

And YES, I am saying the western allies on an individual basis had more battle experience than the soviets by the end of the war because of the simple fact that less of them were killed. Do the math. I must admit, however, that those Soviets which had survived many months of the war were far better than the allied ones.

Well, Soviets didn't created ENTIERLY new armies every year. Hundreds of thousands (if not more) soldiers went throught entire war from 1941 to 1945. I guess it's impossible to find proper statistic about this now. For example my grandfather, he fought since 1941 up to 1945, was wounded many times, but survived. But I must admit he was lucky, one of the three brothers who was lucky enough to survie this war.
Still, I think that in terms of battle experience Red army was far ahed of Allies.

As for Leningrad, it was surrounded but the germans could not bypass it. It was an important junction which had to be taken because they were unable to advance any more to the north-east. Had the germans had the strenght to make it to northern russia, Leningrad would have surely been bypassed, unless of course, Hitler would have wanted it for being LENINgrad.

I brings Leningrad only to point that seige of Berlin could take a lot of time.

[DanS]

A half of the dozen houses out of entire city. After the battle it was city of ruins.

In a way, having a city bearing the name of the battle trivializes one of the bloodiest battles (the bloodiest?) ever fought by mankind. Especially when it really isn't the same city.

But again, it's entirely up to y'all. I have little personal stake in the battle or the city.

[David Floyd]

Sava,

Trust me David, after the destruction that the Germans caused in invading Russia, there would be no stalemate. The Russians would send wave after wave, tank after tank until either they or the Germans lost. And with a higher tank manufacturing capacity and many more troops, Germany would not have been able to hold out.

That's not necessarily true. If Germany was purely on the defense, with commanders who could carry out useful fluid defenses, local counterattacks, etc., the casualties suffered by the SU would be way out of proportion to the number of troops they could put in the field - they would simply run out of men before the Germans would. Remember, the population gap wasn't 10 to 1 or anything like that, and the Germans would not be losing anywhere near the number of troops that the SU would. Eventually, the SU's population would reach an end - as happened historically. In 1945, both Germany AND Russia were at the end of their manpower. In my scenario, it would happen for the SU a lot sooner, and for Germany, later. This means that eventually the SU has to stop attacking for lack of men - they might be able to maintain numbers of troops, but not significantly increase them.

In terms of tanks, again, it's true that Germany was massively outproduced by the SU, but this statistic is also not quite as absolute as it seems. Much of Germany's production capability was tied up in the Battle of the Atlantic - those thousands of U-boats represented a lot of potential tanks, and even more importantly, a lot of potential man-hours that could have been directed elsewhere. Further, the US bombing offensive was very punishing to German industry. While German production was inreasing through the end of 1944, the bombing offensive was depriving Germany of things such as ball-bearing production, oil refining capacity, and things of that nature. Finally, Germany did not even switch to a "total war" production output until relatively late in the war, and production would have continued to rise absent outside interference, which the SU could not provide but the US could.

But it's irrelevant because it's not like the Western Front would remain quiet. The fact that it simply wasn't Germany vs. Russia is at the heart of the matter even though you want to make this a one on one bout. It's easy to think you're right when you play with outlandish hypotheticals, eh?

Well, without the US, the Western Front would necessarily remain quiet. Oh, Britain could launch Dieppe-type raids, and probably push the Germans out of Africa - eventually. They could possibly even launch a successful (but not wildly so) invasion of Norway, and present something of a bombing threat to Germany (although nowhere near that of the US). But invade Sicily or Italy, not to mention France? Impossible.

Serb,

Wait a minute...are you saying that Soviet airforces carped bombed Stalingrad to ruins and slaughtered population of its own citizens?
Btw, within first days of Luwftwafe carpet bombardments of Stalingrad iirc, 123 000 civilians were killed.

While we're on the topic of airpower, why is it that the Soviet Union refused to let the USAAF and RAF conduct shuttle bombing missions? That is, why would it let Allied bombers bomb German targets, then land at Soviet airfields? This would have vastly increased the bombing range and materially helped the war effort.

And don't make the objection that the Soviet Air Force could not have provided proper escorts - 80% of the Luftwaffe's fighters were in the West.

Just curious to hear your justification of this.

Absolutely different wars. Hitler oredered to fight untill last man standing. They didn't want to surrender, no matter what.

So your argument is that Japan was more likely to surrender than Germany?

Leningrad was under seige, in complete isolation since 1941 up to 1944. What makes you think that Germans would defend their capital less than Russians defended Leningrad? What makes you think that Soviets had so much time?

How is that post relevant to my response that the US/British found it more cost effective and military useful (and humane) to go after armies in the field than fortified cities? Sure, the Germans would heavily defend their cities, and so would have the Japanese. That's why we tried to avoid city battles, and that's why we avoided invading places like Rabaul. Of course, the US still took on some heavily fortified areas - read up on, say, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, or Saipan.

[Ned]

Serb, How can we remember Stalingrad if it isn't on the map?

As to the battle of Volgograd, yes it was a great victory for the USSR, for Russia, for the Allies and for mankind.

We, the people of the world, say thank you for the heroic stand you took, and for the blood and sacrifice of so many thousands in the cause of freedom.

[Serb]

Originally posted by DanS
In a way, having a city bearing the name of the battle trivializes one of the bloodiest battles (the bloodiest?) ever fought by mankind.

Yes, IT was the bloodiest battle ever fought by humanity, but without the victory in this battle (and in this war) there was no Russia today. About one million Soviet soldiers died in this battle defending our country. For soldiers who survived this battle, this city was always Stalingrad, and always will be. They remember Stalingrad, not Volgagrad. I don't think that city will be renamed, but if so I wouldn't protest.

Especially when it really isn't the same city.

After the war Stalingrad was rebuild exactly in the same location where it was founded. It's not the same city, but it's exactly the same place where one of greatest and one of the most important for our survival victories was achieved.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd

That's not necessarily true. If Germany was purely on the defense, ...blah...blah...balh....my own fanasies...blah...blah..blah...a bit of crap here and there....blah...blah..blah....Russians sux...blah...blah..blah...America rules!!!.......blah...blah..blah....
which the SU could not provide but the US could."

Great speech! But I already heard it thousand times.

While we're on the topic of airpower, why is it that the Soviet Union refused to let the USAAF and RAF conduct shuttle bombing missions? That is, why would it let Allied bombers bomb German targets, then land at Soviet airfields? This would have vastly increased the bombing range and materially helped the war effort.

And don't make the objection that the Soviet Air Force could not have provided proper escorts - 80% of the Luftwaffe's fighters were in the West.

Just curious to hear your justification of this.

You first.

So your argument is that Japan was more likely to surrender than Germany?

No, my argument is that Soviets didn't have the benefits of nuking two cities to force their enemy to surender. That's why it's different wars.

How is that post relevant to my response that the US/British found it more cost effective and military useful (and humane) to go after armies in the field than fortified cities? Sure, the Germans would heavily defend their cities, and so would have the Japanese. That's why we tried to avoid city battles, and that's why we avoided invading places like Rabaul. Of course, the US still took on some heavily fortified areas - read up on, say, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, or Saipan.

Humane? Humanists, my as$ Nuked two cities, firebombed hell knows how many, but no- we were very humane, because- "we found it more cost effective and military useful (and humane) to go after armies in the field than fortified cities" In other words- "we prefered to bomb enemy's cities to ruins, because otherwise someone of our soldiers might have been hurt during storm".

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ned
Serb, How can we remember Stalingrad if it isn't on the map?

Well, at least it's in history books.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Wrong. By 1944, Germany had over a million men in Italy and the Balkans, 46 divisions in France, including 9 Panzer divisions with 1500 tanks, over 450,000 men in Norway, a million men on air defense duties with thousands of anti-aircraft guns (88s that could be used in anti-tank roles), tens of thousands of men involved in the U-boat campaign with huge resources being poured into U-boats, and 80% of the Luftwaffe's fighter strength on anti-bomber duty in the West.

Additionally, involvement of the US provided the means for the early fall of Africa, and the shipment of a quarter million men there in 1942/43, as well as the capability for the invasions of Sicily and Italy. Add the losses incurred in those campaigns (hundreds of tanks, hundreds of aircraft, at least half a million men, and the country of Italy) to the forces in 1944, and it becomes even more significant.

In 1944, though, the Soviets did not have anything near that level of forces laying around idle or engaged in other sectors, and would have had nothing significant with which to counter.

But this assumes that the same historical outcome took place up to 1944. This is hardly accurate. Without US Lend Lease, the Soviet Union would have been much harder pressed from mid-1942 on. Further, with the lack of credible flank threats, Germany could have devoted a lot more reserves to the Eastern Front, including hundreds of thousands of men and thousands of tanks and fighters, in 1942. Monty would probably have eventually won in Africa, but it would have taken at least a couple more years.

The SU could probably have forced a stalemate, with Germany holding some of the most productive areas of Western Russia - such as arable regions of the Ukraine and parts of the Donets Basin.

I take this as a joke. Stalemate? The biggest defeat ever inflicted on Germans was in summer 1944, destruction of Army Group Mitte. You want to say that Germany on synthetic fuel and with rapidly depleting cadre of experienced troops would have forced a stalemate on SU.
Lack of credible flank threats existed for quite some time, you do not really count Africa as nothing more than a sideshow?

Your view is very understandable. In the past decade or so I met many Americans who honestly think US won the war...

[Serb]

Originally posted by LaRusso
you do not really count Africa as nothing more than a sideshow?

Actually he consider Africa is the reason why Soviets won in Stalingrad.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sava
David, don't be silly... Even without American involvement, the Russians would have beat the Germans back.

I don't think they would have. Hitler had all the resources of Europe at his disposal. The war in the West drew off troops that would have given him the edge in the East.

Most crucially Germany lost air superiority in the East in 1943 because the planes were needed to defend German industry from allied air attacks. This fatally weakened the blitzkrieg, which relied on close air support of armoured units for success.

Russia was close to collapse throughout the war. We know now they were donw to their last reserves of troops in 1944/5. They could not have faced Hitler alone.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Hitler had all the resources of Europe at his disposal.

Stalin had all the resources of Soviet Union at his disposal.

The war in the West drew off troops that would have given him the edge in the East.

Ineresting. Which battles on West front drew off German troops for example in November/December 1941 and how many troops ?

Most crucially Germany lost air superiority in the East in 1943 because the planes were needed to defend German industry from allied air attacks. This fatally weakened the blitzkrieg, which relied on close air support of armoured units for success.

I thought that blitzkrieg was over with defeat in Moscow battle. Anyhow, you can claim that it weakend Wermach, but how you could be so sure that if it wouldn't happened Russians would lose 100%?

Russia was close to collapse throughout the war.

Really? When exactly?

We know now they were donw to their last reserves of troops in 1944/5.

Personaly I don't think so. Anyhow aside Wermacht, there was no divisions of Hitler Yougent's type consisted of 14 years old boys in Red army in 1944/45.

They could not have faced Hitler alone.

Could, couldn't it's pointless, because it's impossible to prove it. You can't turn back time, change the events and see what will happens. In all these "what if scenarious" you can only operate with probability. But I'm sure about one thing- no matter had Hitler additional million of troops on Eastern front or not, Russians would keep fighting to the end, untill they finnaly won or untill all of them would be killed. They simply had no choice.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Russia was close to collapse throughout the war. We know now they were donw to their last reserves of troops in 1944/5. They could not have faced Hitler alone.

And the award goes to.....AH! This has to be THE statement!

22000 canons opened fire on German positions on April 16, 1945, just in ONE sector of the front. Given that Russians were close to collapse, I'd say they were quite spendthrifty

Actually Russians could not face Hitler alone. He had Austrians, Hungarians and the like fighting alongside his armies.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm afraid you Russians are in for a few shocks when the archives are opened. Especially about the secret peace overtures to Hitler in 1941, 1942 and 1943. Stalin was looking for a new Brest Litovsk it seems but Hitler refused to negotiate.

Russia had been bled white by the invasion but still defeated Germany, staggering to victory and collapsing over the finish line exhausted.

Producing tanks and guns was what the Soviet command economy was good at but in other areas the country was falling apart after Hitler's savage mauling. You don't lose 20 million people without dire effects.

There was famine in parts of Russia after the war, civil war in other parts. The Soviet economy never really recovered from the war, the purges and collectivisation. Soviet agriculture was a basket case right up till the fall of the Soviet Union.

One example for now, in 1944 the Russian army began recruiting 16 year olds to fill gaps in the Red army. Russia was running out of troops.

I think the difference in the end was the basic courage of ordinary Russians with their backs to the wall and the ruthlessness of Stalin's Soviet government. Hitler's supermen" could not match these.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'm afraid you Russians are in for a few shocks when the archives are opened. Especially about the secret peace overtures to Hitler in 1941, 1942 and 1943. Stalin was looking for a new Brest Litovsk it seems but Hitler refused to negotiate.

Russia had been bled white by the invasion but still defeated Germany, staggering to victory and collapsing over the finish line exhausted.

Producing tanks and guns was what the Soviet command economy was good at but in other areas the country was falling apart after Hitler's savage mauling. You don't lose 20 million people without dire effects.

true. but you do not stagger to produce A bomb and lauch Sputnik. secret peace offers? sci-fi...

archives have been opened for a long time. everyone knows about katyn massacre now

There was famine in parts of Russia after the war, civil war in other parts. The Soviet economy never really recovered from the war, the purges and collectivisation. Soviet agriculture was a basket case right up till the fall of the Soviet Union..

there was famine literally everywhere except in the US. what civil war are you talking about?
true, soviet economy never recovered from a war. yet, despite (or because) of stalin's policy, they outproduced the whole of occupied europe...

One example for now, in 1944 the Russian army began recruiting 16 year olds to fill gaps in the Red army. Russia was running out of troops.

I think the difference in the end was the basic courage of ordinary Russians with their backs to the wall and the ruthlessness of Stalin's Soviet government. Hitler's supermen" could not match these.

did it run out of them by 1945? were those 16 yr olds in the first lines? where did you get these things from (i am really puzzled)

the difference at the end was everything: courage, discipline (of sorts) and massive production of the command economy (despite or because of bolsheviks, as you please).

[Serb]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'm afraid you Russians are in for a few shocks when the archives are opened.

Why we?
I'm Russian with nick "Serb" and LaRusso is Serbian with nick "LaRusso". Funny. Isn't it?

Especially about the secret peace overtures to Hitler in 1941, 1942 and 1943. Stalin was looking for a new Brest Litovsk it seems but Hitler refused to negotiate.

1941 right after the start of war,I can understand. I don't know how to say it- diplomatic inteligence, perhaps. When diplomats research all possible opportunities. Never heard about 1943, what was the reason to surrender own territory after success in Stalingrad, when there was no critical treat for country and all went quite Ok for Stalin? As for 1942, what makes you think that it wasn't the Stalin's trick? He was very tricky person. What makes you think that he just didn't wanted a short cease-fire to build-up more forces and strike in Hitler's back when he will turn around to deal with Brits? Do you really think STALIN would ever accept loss of Soviet territory? (Stalin who gathered former territories of Russian Empire) Do you really think STALIN would ever forget about sneak attack? (Stalin who believed in his diplomatic gift and who was in fact fooled by Hitler with this non-agression pact) Personaly I think Stalin wasn't the kind of men who was able to forgive its enemies or could accept such things as loss of part of his precious Soviet Empire. It was an attempt to fool Hitler, I'm sure about this. Unsuccessfull attempt of course, no matter what many guys think about Hitler, he wasn't super-mega-idiot.

One example for now, in 1944 the Russian army began recruiting 16 year olds to fill gaps in the Red army. Russia was running out of troops.

Do you have any link that says that 16 year olds were drafted on regular basis in Red army in 1944? I never heard about this. Sure some young volunteers lied to draftmans about their true age, but draft of 16 olds on regular basis it's absolutely different thing.

[Sava]

I think if a Russian invented the Cure for Cancer, Floyd would still say the guy's wrong.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Serb
LaRusso is Serbian with nick "LaRusso". Funny. Isn't it?

Well I have misspelled Italian family name of a character in 'Mediterraneo'

[David Floyd]

Stalin had all the resources of Soviet Union at his disposal.

True, and those resources were insufficient to produce complex machine tools, or enough locomotives/rail tracks, or grain, etc.

Ineresting. Which battles on West front drew off German troops for example in November/December 1941 and how many troops ?

You have a very simplistic view of war. The presence of a credible threat draws troops away from other sectors. In May 1944, there were no battles going on in France, yet Germany still had 46 divisions - including 9 Panzer divisions with 1500 tanks - sitting around in France. This is pretty significant, wouldn't you say? An entire Panzer group and a couple of armies would have made quite a contribution on the Eastern Front, eh?

I thought that blitzkrieg was over with defeat in Moscow battle. Anyhow, you can claim that it weakend Wermach, but how you could be so sure that if it wouldn't happened Russians would lose 100%?

That's incorrect. Even after Stalingrad, the Wehrmacht had largely recovered throughout the spring of 1943, and launched some pretty good blitzkrieg-style local counterattacks that succeeded in retaking a good bit of territory in the Ukraine.

Personaly I don't think so.

Well, if you personally disagree with historic fact, I guess I'll just have to believe you

But I'm sure about one thing- no matter had Hitler additional million of troops on Eastern front or not, Russians would keep fighting to the end, untill they finnaly won or untill all of them would be killed. They simply had no choice.

Kept fighting, yes. Kept launching massive attacks, no, at least not once they maxed out their manpower availability and were only going down, and not once their production abilities peaked, and Germany's began to approach their's.

LaRusso,

true. but you do not stagger to produce A bomb and lauch Sputnik.

The Abomb was produced because of espionage - you stole it from the US. You launched Sputnik because of German scientists and expertise.

there was famine literally everywhere except in the US.

Umm, no.

Sava,

I think if a Russian invented the Cure for Cancer, Floyd would still say the guy's wrong.

No, but if you claimed a Russian invented it when an American did, I'd say YOU were wrong

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


True, and those resources were insufficient to produce complex machine tools, or enough locomotives/rail tracks, or grain, etc.

Bullsh!t. You have one problem Floyd, you believe that during the war there were only Americans locomotives on Soviet railroads. For you 2000 locomotives it's huge number, but in fact for such huge country as Soviet Union 2000 locomotives it's a drop in the ocean. The fact that SU lowered production of its locomotives during the war doesn't mean that all Soviet locomotives magicaly dissapiared somewhere.
WHEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT LEND- LEASE WAS LESS THAN 5%, FIVE PERCENTS OF TOTAL SOVIET WAR-RELATED PRODUCTION?

You have a very simplistic view of war. The presence of a credible threat draws troops away from other sectors. In May 1944, there were no battles going on in France, yet Germany still had 46 divisions - including 9 Panzer divisions with 1500 tanks - sitting around in France. This is pretty significant, wouldn't you say? An entire Panzer group and a couple of armies would have made quite a contribution on the Eastern Front, eh?

If I have a very simplistic view of war, then you have a problem with reading. I've asked "which battles on West front drew off German troops for example in November/December 1941 and how many troops ?" Once again IN 1941, not in 1944. If you do not realize that landing in Normandy in 1944 was nothing more than attempt to grab at least something in Europe, before commies would take everything, BECAUSE it was absolutely clear that Germany is doomed and nothing would stop Soviets, then you are hopeless.

That's incorrect. Even after Stalingrad, the Wehrmacht had largely recovered throughout the spring of 1943, and launched some pretty good blitzkrieg-style local counterattacks that succeeded in retaking a good bit of territory in the Ukraine.

You are talking about tactic, I was talking about strategy. And still, you didn't answered how the hell you could be 100% sure that Soviets would have lost if in 1943 Germans still had air-superiority? They had it 1941, so what? And you have to prove first that Soviets would lost air-superiority if Germany had these additional fighters.

Kept fighting, yes. Kept launching massive attacks, no, at least not once they maxed out their manpower availability and were only going down, and not once their production abilities peaked, and Germany's began to approach their's.

WHo the hell told that Soviets would be out of manpower earlier than Germany? Who the hell told you that Soviets maxed their industrial capacity? In 1942 an evacuated beyond Ural factories just started to increase its capacity. Soviet industry was far away from its maximum capacity. Your claims based on your own fantasies and fairytales of this anti-Soviet sh!tty writer whose book you read. It's obviously that both of you hate Russians so much that "prefer the nazi to destroy the Soviet Union" (c) David Floyd.

The Abomb was produced because of espionage - you stole it from the US. You launched Sputnik because of German scientists and expertise.

Blah...blah..blah...empty claim for both cases. You guys took ABSOLUTE majority of German rocketry research and scientists, still SU was able to beat you in space race.

No, but if you claimed a Russian invented it when an American did, I'd say YOU were wrong

Oh sure, Americans invented everything and saved everyones as$es. In fact you guys are the greates technology thieves humanity ever saw. You guys "sucking brains" from all around the world.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'm afraid you Russians are in for a few shocks when the archives are opened. Especially about the secret peace overtures to Hitler in 1941, 1942 and 1943. Stalin was looking for a new Brest Litovsk it seems but Hitler refused to negotiate.

I've checked my book and have to say that I was mistaken. It was at the end of 1941 right before the Soviet Moscow's counter-offence, no at the beggining of 1942 as I thought. So, I have no idea about such attemts in 1942 and in 1943, perhaps you could enlighten me about this? Btw, do you know that Brits were doing exactly the same exactly at the same time (trying to sign separate peace with Hitler of course)? Does it mean that Brits "were close to collapse" too?