What was the biggest mistake made during WWII?

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest mistake by leaps and bounds was the invasion of the Soviet Union. The war in the East was over before it had even begun.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Germany would have won that one if they had mobilized their economy and planned for a 2 year campaign (at least). Instead they thought they could do it in one go, and that it would be like France. Nope, big difference.

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest mistake by leaps and bounds was the invasion of the Soviet Union. The war in the East was over before it had even begun.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Germany would have won that one

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you be so sure of that, that is highly debatable.

[ QUOTE ]
If not for the communists being in charge, Russia would undoubtedly still have been a weak country 25 years later.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the most ridiculous statement of the century..

[MrMon]

You honestly think the Czar or a weak democratic government could have developed Russia as much as the communists did in 25 years? I'm as anti-communist as the next guy, but even I have to admit, the economic progress they achieved was nothing short of a miracle. Just shows what terror and killing several million people can do to motivate people.

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
You honestly think the Czar or a weak democratic government could have developed Russia as much as the communists did in 25 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes yes and yes

Communists really didn't do as much as you think; this is something that the Czarist gov't would have be easily be able to achieve with few political and economic reforms.

[AdamL]

Sightless asks how I can be sure that the Germans would have won in the east if they had fully mobilized their economy.

Read the campaigns, it's actually really plain and obvious if you look strictly at the strategic picture. I don't buy any of the [censored] about the Russians being inferior tactically (though they had logistical problems, etc.) But strategic scale, even operational scale in 1941, the Russians are hanging by their underpants.

1941 they're just recruiting as many guys as they lose and replacing armor as fast as they can. All the armies on the front get smashed because they aren't allowed to retreat and have at most 10 days supplies each. The Germans push through. Entire Soviet Armored Corps evaporate.

But it's not France. Russia is big, it's deep. The Russians produce tank brigades and shoot them at the front lines like ammunition (no long term outlook/plan). They hold the Germans by throwing up a new line in front of their old ones, over and over again.

Eventually the German offensive slows down (due to replacement pools getting exhausted, supply strain, all kinds of shortages, a lot of it caused by the weather) and the Soviets get a breather -- instead of the replacements going straight into the meat grinder, there is enough complacence from the Germans that a new front actually gets to form. Instead of breaking even losses vs. replacements, they actually get gain and get stronger.

Then of course next year the Germans still haven't mobilized and the Soviets produce something like 3-4x as much war material each month. Eventually the Soviets throw together an army from the surplus, a German army gets surrounded by the new offensive (surprise surprise) and the whole thing goes on from there.

It's not like Germany could just take the Soviet Union easily. More than 1 year. Certainly 2. Full war production.

Germany's problem was thinking they could win without full economic mobilization, not that they were incapable of winning at all.

There's some good discussions out there on the net on this stuff, which is where I learned most of what I pass along here.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy any of the [censored] about the Russians being inferior tactically

[/ QUOTE ]

The Germans didnt need blocking squads. Blocking squad equals a squad ordered to shoot the guys who run back from the MLA. During the first few years of the war, the russians were very poorly trained and equiped. They did have an advantage in the T-34 but didnt know how to use it.

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy any of the [censored] about the Russians being inferior tactically

[/ QUOTE ]

The Germans didnt need blocking squads. Blocking squad equals a squad ordered to shoot the guys who run back from the MLA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not equal poor tactically. Simply does not follow.

Do you think Napoleon was poor tactically? He used "blocking squads". They're called Grenediers - lol.

Besides this, the presentation of this idea is way overstated because it's shocking to say "Oh look, they sometimes shot their own men." It's overused. Commissars had the power to shoot a man but it was hardly the standard way to organize attack.

In any case, there simply were few Soviet Infantry Division attacks in the entire 1941 campaign. If anything, they were defending. Hardly need commissars to urge anyone to fire their weapon at the approaching "Guy who is going to kill you if you don't fire at them." Easy decisision. The key is keeping your men calm enough to aim and think.

Most Soviet attacks were done by starving armored divisions in 1941, and there certainly was no "blocking squad" for those.

The problem is not that the Soviet Union is tacticaly missing anything whatsoever. It's all about the fact that they're terribly disorganized at the level where it matters most - operationally. Disorganization is standard tactially, for everyone. Strategically the Soviet Union managed to do the right thing, if not in spite of a horrible supply network. Their problems were operational. Had nothing to do with their combat abilities.

Frankly, there was nothing wrong with the Germans tactically either (in fact they were the best in the entire world at the time) but they failed to mobilize for more than a 1 year campaign. Whoops.