22 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76Sevastopol held until July 9th and tied up and severely bloodied one of the best German armies; Manstein's 11th.
I didn't even realize it was that late, though the battles of Kharkov and Sevastopol (big German victories) were earlier, IIRC. So maybe I'd change it to August instead of July.
By September and October, the strategic decisions that had been made in the summer had probably already thrown away any chance to win the campaign.
The Kharkov campaign was a Soviet disaster, but it was they who attacked on May 12th. Whether Blau could have started earlier is unclear, but it did take 6 weeks and tens of thousands of German losses to smash the Soviet offensive in that area.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderIn fact, Sevastopol (and Odessa) were given a Hero city status for their contribution to overall victory. These campaigns are considered successful even though both cities were orderly left behind. Kharkov, is indeed, another matter.
Sevastopol held until July 9th and tied up and severely bloodied one of the best German armies; Manstein's 11th.
The Kharkov campaign was a Soviet disaster, but it was they who attacked on May 12th. Whether Blau could have started earlier is unclear, but it did take 6 weeks and tens of thousands of German losses to smash the Soviet offensive in that area.
As to the overall war result, personally, I don't think it mattered how far Germans would've advanced and how quickly. They were eventually doomed just by crossing the border.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by infomastI haven't come across this alternative history scenario before: How much sooner would the war have ended had the Soviet high
As to the overall war result, personally, I don't think it mattered how far Germans would've advanced and how quickly. They were eventually doomed just by crossing the border.
command allocated the energy and resources spent on killing countless suspected traitors to fighting the Axis powers instead?
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's possible that they would be unable to present the immense unified front if they didn't have a dominating figure at the top.
I haven't come across this alternative history scenario before: How much sooner would the war have ended had the Soviet high
command allocated the energy and resources spent on killing countless suspected traitors to fighting the Axis powers instead?
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePlenty of people here either support Stalin's purges as historically justified or deny their scale. Methinks a tyrant is a tyrant even with some achievements. Anyway, prewar military doctrine didn't even consider prolong fighting inside Soviet territory, as any would be agressor should've been repelled within hours.
I haven't come across this alternative history scenario before: How much sooner would the war have ended had the Soviet high
command allocated the energy and resources spent on killing countless suspected traitors to fighting the Axis powers instead?