PokerTips.org Forums

PokerTips.org Forums (http://www.pokertips.org/forums/index.php)
-   The Rail (http://www.pokertips.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   Ghosts of the Ostfront (http://www.pokertips.org/forums/showthread.php?t=87293)

Hustlr Jun 25, 2013 5:32pm

Ghosts of the Ostfront
 
Does anyone post here anymore?

A few years ago, Killcrazy and I had a discussion about the turning point of WWII. Regardless of what most Americans probably think, I suggested that the battle of Stalingrad was the pivot point, completely changing the course of the war.

I just finished listening to one of my favorite podcasts, Dan Carlin's Hardcore History. He has a four part series called, Ghosts of the Ostfront, which reminded me of our previous conversation. I highly suggest listening to it. Just the story of Stalingrad alone is mind blowing. I believe this particular series is now only available from his website for $6, which is completely worth it.

He has other episodes available for free. My other favorites are "Logical Insanity" and "Globalization Unto Death."

Ghosts of the Ostfront YouTube preview

Deadfall Jun 25, 2013 7:47pm

Cool, thanks for the info. I may check this out. Kind of fascinated by WWII stuff.

darryl Jun 28, 2013 10:51pm

I post here, but I think it's dead unfortunately, so no point in posting if no one reads it.

About all I know about world war II is involving the development of the atomic bomb, so my point of view would be too skewed to answer intelligently. Crazy that the Russians completely infultrated the US and made a copy cat Fat Man.

Anyway, that said Stalingrad was pretty important, I agree with you there. I don't know if one can give a definitive pivot point though.

-d

killcrazy Jun 30, 2013 1:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by darryl (Post 1018833)
Anyway, that said Stalingrad was pretty important, I agree with you there. I don't know if one can give a definitive pivot point though.

germany lost almost a million men at stalingrad.

granted the russians lost more than a million, but most of them were boys who were grabbed off the farms and shoved in the back of a van three days ago, with a lottery to determine which lucky few would get to hold a rifle.

Kc

Hustlr Jul 01, 2013 5:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by killcrazy (Post 1018834)
Quote:

Originally Posted by darryl (Post 1018833)
Anyway, that said Stalingrad was pretty important, I agree with you there. I don't know if one can give a definitive pivot point though.

germany lost almost a million men at stalingrad.

granted the russians lost more than a million, but most of them were boys who were grabbed off the farms and shoved in the back of a van three days ago, with a lottery to determine which lucky few would get to hold a rifle.

Kc

Germany had basically steamrolled everyone before Stalingrad. They lost more in that battle for one single city than they had lost during the entire campaign at that point.

joeyjoejoejr Jul 02, 2013 4:51am

The pivotal point of the war was in late 1940 when Hitler officially signed off to German high command that operation Barbarossa was a go. His fate was basically sealed after that.

Had the Germans rolled through Stalingrad it would have just delayed the inevitable Soviet turning point. The Germans were overstretched and facing an enemy with basically unlimited manpower.

If instead in late 1940 Hitler had entertained Soviet proposals for Soviet entry into the Axis who knows what could have happened. Or if the winter war had lasted a little longer France and Britain might have carried through with their plans for intervention in Finland that also could have led for soviet entrance into the axis.

Probably Great Britain was not falling to Germany even with Soviet support but you can imagine ugly scenarios where Germany uses the resources earmarked for Barbarossa instead to shore up Western Africa, +invasions of Gibraltar (with or without Spain),+ Malta , and eventually Egypt. Meanwhile the Soviets invade Iraq through Iran and engage British India.

While I am at it lets say that Stalin somehow convinces Mao and the Japanese to come to a separate peace and the communists enter the Axis. All of Eurasia with the exception of GB , + parts of india and china could be under Axis rule by 1943.

Now of course it would be an alliance where everyone pretty much both racially and ideologically hates other and almost certainly would have led into another war + but they could have won WW2.

killcrazy Jul 02, 2013 3:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hustlr (Post 1018837)
Germany had basically steamrolled everyone before Stalingrad.

*cough* battle of britain *uncough*

Quote:

Originally Posted by joey
The pivotal point of the war was in late 1940 when Hitler officially signed off to German high command that operation Barbarossa was a go. His fate was basically sealed after that.

i think your definition of turning/pivot point is substantially different to everyone else's.

by this logic, the turning point of the war came before the war started; germany knew it had to invade russia before the order was signed, and so on all the way back to the time of hammurabi.

Quote:

Had the Germans rolled through Stalingrad it would have just delayed the inevitable Soviet turning point. The Germans were overstretched and facing an enemy with basically unlimited manpower.
the word i usually reserve for statements like this is "woolly".

firstly, looking back on it with the information we have now, it seems that stalingrad may have been unwinnable for germany. if this is so, then speculating about the consequences of alternate outcomes is akin to speculating about a world where rain falls up.

however, if we assume that germany somehow prevails, then what did russia have left? they were pouring untrained boys into stalingrad. what were they going to use to defend moscow? their little sisters?

Quote:

If instead in late 1940 Hitler had entertained Soviet proposals for Soviet entry into the Axis who knows what could have happened. Or if the winter war had lasted a little longer France and Britain might have carried through with their plans for intervention in Finland that also could have led for soviet entrance into the axis.
this all seems like meaningless speculation, given that we are asking about what did happen, not what might have happened. germany was winning, but germany lost. at some point they had to go from winning to losing, and that point was stalingrad.

incidentally i'm far from convinced that the talks between russia and germany were conducted in good faith on either side, and it's highly unlikely we're ever going to discover what was actually going on in the heads of the various people involved.

Quote:

Probably Great Britain was not falling to Germany even with Soviet support but you can imagine ugly scenarios where Germany uses the resources earmarked for Barbarossa instead to shore up Western Africa, +invasions of Gibraltar (with or without Spain),+ Malta , and eventually Egypt. Meanwhile the Soviets invade Iraq through Iran and engage British India.

While I am at it lets say that Stalin somehow convinces Mao and the Japanese to come to a separate peace and the communists enter the Axis. All of Eurasia with the exception of GB , + parts of india and china could be under Axis rule by 1943.

Now of course it would be an alliance where everyone pretty much both racially and ideologically hates other and almost certainly would have led into another war + but they could have won WW2.
yes. if absolutely everything had fallen perfectly into place for germany, they would probably have had much more fun in the mid to late 1940s than they did.

of course, if neville chamberlain hadn't been a craven fool then germany would never got out of the blocks.

Kc

joeyjoejoejr Jul 03, 2013 2:05am

Quote:

their little sisters?

Actually the willingness of the Soviets to use woman in some combat roles was a significant advantage in the war.

Since I have to choose an actual event... one could easily argue that the battle of Moscow was just as significant or more so than Stalingrad.

It was the first time the Germans were beat back on the ground and any possibility for a quick war was ended. Case Blue happened only because Barbarossahad failed in Moscow. After the battle of Moscow the German units on the frontline were never properly supplied again.

Quote:


of course, if neville chamberlain hadn't been a craven fool then germany would never got out of the blocks.

You can't give him all the credit + the French are more fun to make fun off.

killcrazy Jul 03, 2013 2:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyjoejoejr (Post 1018844)
Quote:

their little sisters?

Actually the willingness of the Soviets to use woman in some combat roles was a significant advantage in the war.

i feel you are sidestepping the point somewhat.

Quote:

Since I have to choose an actual event... one could easily argue that the battle of Moscow was just as significant or more so than Stalingrad.

It was the first time the Germans were beat back on the ground
we'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure Rommel's retreat across Libya came first.

the most significant consequence of moscow was hitler's tremendously creative decision to trust the wehrmacht to a lance corporal.

Quote:

Quote:

of course, if neville chamberlain hadn't been a craven fool then germany would never got out of the blocks.

You can't give him all the credit + the French are more fun to make fun off.
true, we should also thank stanley baldwin for inexplicably insisting that the best way to prevent another war in europe was to let germany tool up until they had absolute parity with the british empire.

Kc

Snaggle Jul 10, 2013 3:32am

The Russian campaign decided the war with Germany, so why did they lose it. One big cause Hitler's decision to pull all the German spies out of the Soviet Union. That decision led to the Nazi invading a country with more tanks and much better ones: in terms of speed; armor and guns. It's impossible to do a Blitzkrieg when the other army has faster tanks, with more range and better penetration. Because of that reality the Nazi were forced to fight essentially trench warfare at Stalingrad and Moscow and when they failed they had to fight a defensive war for the rest of the war.

If Hitler had not pulled out Germany's spies the Mark III and Mark IV would have been fitted with heavier guns to start with. It also did not help that the early Tiger tanks that were meant to be the weapons of decision at Stalingrad and Moscow did not have machine guns- making them very vulnerable to infantry. If the Nazi had prepared better that would have won the initial invasion and captured Soviet oil fields and industry and crippled even the ability of the Soviets to raise more manpower. The Soviet union was essentially another bungled beer hall punsch. Hitler's conceit and foolhardiness doomed the third reich:)


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26am.

vBulletin 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.