Yeah he should have focused on crushing the English inside Europe, The Middle East and North Africa before declaring any war on the Soviets and the United States. Plus not letting his armies to retreat at all? 
The battle of Kursk
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
you must be trolling.....right?
if Hitler would have given his troops winter gear they may have had a chance.
if Hitler didn't declare war on Russia, then he could have had Russia as an ally until after the war was over...then Germany and Japan could have tag teamed Stalin.
if Hitler didn't declare war on Russia, then he could have had Russia as an ally until after the war was over...then Germany and Japan could have tag teamed Stalin.
would have a been a lot more without those supplies
we all broke now breh
So you give the Chinese the bulk of credit for victory in the Vietnam war?
Weapons are useless without people actually fighting a hypermodern army of 500k Nazis.
Don't ever address me.
So you give the Chinese the bulk of credit for victory in the Vietnam war?
I never said America deserves the bulk of the credit, I just said America's contributions shouldn't be ignored.
Where do these number come from? The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union consisted of approximately 3 million German soldier. 500K?
Anyway, people without weapons and food in their stomach are also useless. To put it in perspective, Stalin's USSR, during the 30's, lost millions to starvation as a result of the mismanaged collectivization of agriculture under his 1st 5 Year Plan. More were lost during the 30's to famine than were lost in World War I, and this is during a time of peace.
In the opening years of World War 2, the soviets were able to feed and equip their army largely off of lend-lease aid.
Also, you seem to mention the 25 million lost as if its some sort of badge of honor. Most would say that number is so high as a result of Red Army incompetence at junior and senior officer level as a result of Stalin's purges. Just look at the Soviet invasion of Finland, the so-called "Winter War", if you'd like more proof.
One last point, your describing of the Wermacht as "hypermodern" is interesting for several reason. First, you're conceding that equipment/supplies are crucial to the success of an army, all the while denying that same importance in regards to the Red Army. Second, this "hypermodern" army, which used tanks as the backbone of its doctrine, was outclasses by the Russian T-34. The very tank used to defeat the Nazi's at Kursk (to connect this to the OP). Once again, suggesting that equipment/supplies (which came in large part from America) played a decisive role on the Eastern front.
And to be clear, I don't mean to take anything away from the Red Army. They fought tenaciously to be sure. However, to say the Soviets defeated the Nazis single handed is a flawed view of history.
