Victory conditions for either

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

Your information goes contrary to 99% of historians..perhaps you are correct, but that would be an amazing feat for "mythbusters" to gain knowledge that most people who studied, fought, or otherwise were involved in this war, failed to gain.
The Seydlitz in my name is actually my last name, and I had a relative who fought in this war, and was of some note, so excuse me if I fail to be impressed by an American who is, as most of the posters here, famous for being a Soviet apologist (Glantz)

IOW's you have nothing to dispute it but a "claim" to some relative who fought in this war. Which does nothing for the subject at hand.

See, I had relatives who fought in that war too. Or rather, had, as they all passed on.

So, what was your point? If any?

And of course, you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Glantz, or any one here, is a Soviet apoligists.

Just what are they apologizing for? Busting the myth of German superiority by beating the snot out of them?

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Like an American would know more about a war fought by Germans and Russians. Do you realize that most of those formations were mere shells?

I honestly think there is some kind of mass misinformation campaign going on around here about the German capacity to win the war. Why don't you read some material written by people who actually fought that war.

As far as I know Fritz Todt was not American. Before the Blizzard Massacres (october or november 1941) he informed Hitler that the war (in the east, obviously) "could not be militarily won"...

It's not even a "biased historian", it's a nazi leader and said so just a few months after the attack started! Now that's a defeatist! LOL

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

Your information goes contrary to 99% of historians..perhaps you are correct, but that would be an amazing feat for "mythbusters" to gain knowledge that most people who studied, fought, or otherwise were involved in this war, failed to gain.
The Seydlitz in my name is actually my last name, and I had a relative who fought in this war, and was of some note, so excuse me if I fail to be impressed by an American who is, as most of the posters here, famous for being a Soviet apologist (Glantz)

Actually if 99 post-war German or German-derived references said one thing and Glantz said another, I would go with Glantz. Any history on this subject written before 1991 is suspect due to lack of access to Soviet archives.

[RCHarmon]

Hindsight makes a solid argument.

I think there might be more to it though. To bad any discussion on any level of civility has left this forum.


To think that the Soviet Union couldn't at some level collapse is ludicrous. To think that the Soviet Union wasn't under strain is also ludicrous.

Lets give just due here. The strength and determination of the Russian citizen and soldier(not to mention the 1941 blizzard) stopped and eventually repelled the Axis forces. To minimize their effort and the challenges they endured treats them like children.

If you look at numbers it is hard to imagine Germany actually ever having a chance, but it is not always about numbers. The realities on the Eastern front in 1941 and 1942 were not all about numbers. The story of the Eastern front did become simple mathematics, but it didn't start out that way.

Give the German army and the Russian soldier some respect.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

Your information goes contrary to 99% of historians..perhaps you are correct, but that would be an amazing feat for "mythbusters" to gain knowledge that most people who studied, fought, or otherwise were involved in this war, failed to gain.
The Seydlitz in my name is actually my last name, and I had a relative who fought in this war, and was of some note, so excuse me if I fail to be impressed by an American who is, as most of the posters here, famous for being a Soviet apologist (Glantz)

Actually if 99 post-war German or German-derived references said one thing and Glantz said another, I would go with Glantz. Any history on this subject written before 1991 is suspect due to lack of access to Soviet archives.

You know how it goes. Only the sources from the losing side are valid.

[kg_1007]

Wow..I did not mean for anything I SAID to have led to this argument, so I apologize to all if that was the case.
rvseydlitz is correct in his assessment of some of the sources..I would definitely call Beevor a much better historian that a vague"mythbusters" and even at the US Military Academy at West Point (hardly an Axis sympathizing organization) WE learned from many quite excellent professors of history, just how close the war came to going the other way, even with the Allied advantage of reading the command signals, etc.
Having said that, I do apologize as I said if my somewhat flip remarks led to this sudden skirmish, for want of a better term. Aurelius, in particular, my reply to you was probably very flip, I did not mean that to be as bad as it sounded.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: jaw

I could recommend several authors but why not just go with the best: David Glantz at the link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz

You'll find several books on the War in the East in general and Barbarossa in particular. I also have a pdf of an article written by him on the state of the Red Army in June, 1941 and its mobilization. One look at the sheer number of formations the Russians put into the field in the summer and fall of 1941 and you will realize how ludicously small the Siberian divisions were to the total strength of the Red Army. If you are interested send me your email address and I will send it to you.

Jim Wirth

jawirth@comcast.net

That pdf is *really* worth the read.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Wow..I did not mean for anything I SAID to have led to this argument, so I apologize to all if that was the case.
rvseydlitz is correct in his assessment of some of the sources..I would definitely call Beevor a much better historian that a vague"mythbusters" and even at the US Military Academy at West Point (hardly an Axis sympathizing organization) WE learned from many quite excellent professors of history, just how close the war came to going the other way, even with the Allied advantage of reading the command signals, etc.
Having said that, I do apologize as I said if my somewhat flip remarks led to this sudden skirmish, for want of a better term. Aurelius, in particular, my reply to you was probably very flip, I did not mean that to be as bad as it sounded.

Eh, no problem kg. I didn't take offense .

[kg_1007]

Aurelian, not Aurelius, sorry again lol.

[kg_1007]

double post..

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

Ahh, and the Bulgarian one took all of a few seconds to find as well. Anthony Beevor in "Stalingrad" and he sites Soviet STAVKA notes.

Stalingrad isn't Moscow. And its capture was not deemed necessay according to Fall Blau II.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Aurelian, not Aurelius, sorry again lol.

LOL

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

Your information goes contrary to 99% of historians..perhaps you are correct, but that would be an amazing feat for "mythbusters" to gain knowledge that most people who studied, fought, or otherwise were involved in this war, failed to gain.
The Seydlitz in my name is actually my last name, and I had a relative who fought in this war, and was of some note, so excuse me if I fail to be impressed by an American who is, as most of the posters here, famous for being a Soviet apologist (Glantz)

Are you implying that you are related to the former General der Artillerie von Seydlitz? I sent you a PM, please reply. Thank you.

[rvseydlitz]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

Your information goes contrary to 99% of historians..perhaps you are correct, but that would be an amazing feat for "mythbusters" to gain knowledge that most people who studied, fought, or otherwise were involved in this war, failed to gain.
The Seydlitz in my name is actually my last name, and I had a relative who fought in this war, and was of some note, so excuse me if I fail to be impressed by an American who is, as most of the posters here, famous for being a Soviet apologist (Glantz)

Are you implying that you are related to the former General der Artillerie von Seydlitz? I sent you a PM, please reply. Thank you.

Yes, he was my great uncle.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

Your information goes contrary to 99% of historians..perhaps you are correct, but that would be an amazing feat for "mythbusters" to gain knowledge that most people who studied, fought, or otherwise were involved in this war, failed to gain.
The Seydlitz in my name is actually my last name, and I had a relative who fought in this war, and was of some note, so excuse me if I fail to be impressed by an American who is, as most of the posters here, famous for being a Soviet apologist (Glantz)

IOW's you have nothing to dispute it but a "claim" to some relative who fought in this war. Which does nothing for the subject at hand.

See, I had relatives who fought in that war too. Or rather, had, as they all passed on.

So, what was your point? If any?

And of course, you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Glantz, or any one here, is a Soviet apoligists.

Just what are they apologizing for? Busting the myth of German superiority by beating the snot out of them?

Still waiting seydlitz

[RedBunny]

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

Your information goes contrary to 99% of historians..perhaps you are correct, but that would be an amazing feat for "mythbusters" to gain knowledge that most people who studied, fought, or otherwise were involved in this war, failed to gain.
The Seydlitz in my name is actually my last name, and I had a relative who fought in this war, and was of some note, so excuse me if I fail to be impressed by an American who is, as most of the posters here, famous for being a Soviet apologist (Glantz)

Are you implying that you are related to the former General der Artillerie von Seydlitz? I sent you a PM, please reply. Thank you.

Yes, he was my great uncle.

Glantz is 'famous' for being a Western historian who primarily uses Soviet sources in his works. That doesn't make him a Soviet apologist any more than
it makes virtually all Western historians before him Nazi sympathizers because they primarily use(d) German sources.

Go ahead and criticize Glantz' work but do so on the content of his work. And don't expect anyone to be impressed by your arguments because who your great uncle was.

[kg_1007]

I would not say that Glantz is a "Soviet apologist" either Mr Seydlitz... I know many who disagree with his work, but it is hard to just lay down a blanket statement like that about someone. Most disagreements I know of, lean more to the fact that he may be as much biased in the Soviet side, as many before have been biased on the German side..that is what happens either way when you draw all of or most of your research from sources on only one side..in that case, the truth is usually likely somewhere in the middle.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz
The Seydlitz in my name is actually my last name, and I had a relative who fought in this war, and was of some note, so excuse me if I fail to be impressed by an American who is, as most of the posters here, famous for being a Soviet apologist (Glantz)

Congratulations, of the many weak arguments I've read on this forum, this must be the weakest...absolutely pathetic.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

Your information goes contrary to 99% of historians..perhaps you are correct, but that would be an amazing feat for "mythbusters" to gain knowledge that most people who studied, fought, or otherwise were involved in this war, failed to gain.
The Seydlitz in my name is actually my last name, and I had a relative who fought in this war, and was of some note, so excuse me if I fail to be impressed by an American who is, as most of the posters here, famous for being a Soviet apologist (Glantz)

Thank you. This forum is all too often a "cult of Glantz."

Glantz is an uncreative, unimaginative thinker. He mainly regurgitates lists of numbers without questioning them. The only reason for his erstwhile "authority" is that he's an American writer. America, with the largest budgeted military in the world, requires its officer corps to read him.

Ironically, Americans are routinely shown to be one of the most ignorant nations in geography, history, and geopolitics.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

Your information goes contrary to 99% of historians..perhaps you are correct, but that would be an amazing feat for "mythbusters" to gain knowledge that most people who studied, fought, or otherwise were involved in this war, failed to gain.
The Seydlitz in my name is actually my last name, and I had a relative who fought in this war, and was of some note, so excuse me if I fail to be impressed by an American who is, as most of the posters here, famous for being a Soviet apologist (Glantz)

Thank you. This forum is all too often a "cult of Glantz."

Glantz is an uncreative, unimaginative thinker. He mainly regurgitates lists of numbers without questioning them. The only reason for his erstwhile "authority" is that he's an American writer. America, with the largest budgeted military in the world, requires its officer corps to read him.

Ironically, Americans are routinely shown to be one of the most ignorant nations in geography, history, and geopolitics.

Actually as a member of the American "officer corps" I should say that our curriculum at West Point did include reading his work, but did not just accept it at face value, as I mentioned earlier in this thread I believe, the West Point chief history professor actually very strongly disagrees with his research and sources in many cases..we read his work, but also read the work of people on the other side(as any learning class should do), and debated the issues, and weighed the arguments ourselves.