Why did Germany lose WW2? - Page 103




 
--
 
April 3rd, 2014  
lljadw
 
[QUOTE=JOC;670111]Stalin did a good job of occupying Poland, East Germany, Hungry, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic states, parts of Finland, Strong influence on N Korea, etc. until his death in 1953, why not Hitler? [/QUOTE

1) There was no etc .


2) )Because Hitler needed also to occupy France,Britain,Belgium,Holland,Poand,.... and the European part of the SU.:300 million people and Stalin only 100 million .


3) Because Germany had 80 million inhabitants and the SU more than the double

4) Because Hitler would need to have permanently a WM of 4 million : 1 million
in the East,1 million in the other occupied territories, one million in Germany and 1 million for the LW and the KM,which is 5 % of the population : imagine the US with armed forces of 15 million,for several generations ,till 2100.
April 3rd, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: occupation


[quote=lljadw;670117]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
Stalin did a good job of occupying Poland, East Germany, Hungry, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic states, parts of Finland, Strong influence on N Korea, etc. until his death in 1953, why not Hitler? [/QUOTE

1) There was no etc .


2) )Because Hitler needed also to occupy France,Britain,Belgium,Holland,Poand,.... and the European part of the SU.:300 million people and Stalin only 100 million .


3) Because Germany had 80 million inhabitants and the SU more than the double

4) Because Hitler would need to have permanently a WM of 4 million : 1 million
in the East,1 million in the other occupied territories, one million in Germany and 1 million for the LW and the KM,which is 5 % of the population : imagine the US with armed forces of 15 million,for several generations ,till 2100.
Fewer troops are needed for an army occupation than are needed for an offensive war of conquest.
What is there is no etc?
April 4th, 2014  
BritinAfrica
 
 
I vaguely remember a senior officer stating "Invading a country is the easy part, keeping it is another thing altogether."
--
April 4th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: German occuptin troops


Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
I vaguely remember a senior officer stating "Invading a country is the easy part, keeping it is another thing altogether."
Germany used only 6 undermanned SS divisions to police the occupied USSR, which at its maximum had a population of ~ 70 million. The Russian resistance movement really didn't cause as many problems for Germany as people often credit them for and were not a deterring factor on the eastern conflict. Although they were at times disruptive. Yes some valuable troops were siphoned off to Yugoslavia, Greece, and to a lesser extent Italy and France to deal with Partisan fighters but the numbers were not that high.
April 4th, 2014  
lljadw
 
After victory in the East,the occupied part of the SU would be much bigger than it was in the OTL : it would extend to the Urals .And,the Germans planned an occupation army in the East of 50 divisions,which would result for the army /WSS in 1 million men (Heerestruppen included) .
April 4th, 2014  
lljadw
 
[quote=JOC;670118]
What is there is no etc?


No etc :means that the strong influence of Stalin was limited to North Korea
April 5th, 2014  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
Germany used only 6 undermanned SS divisions to police the occupied USSR, which at its maximum had a population of ~ 70 million. The Russian resistance movement really didn't cause as many problems for Germany as people often credit them for and were not a deterring factor on the eastern conflict. Although they were at times disruptive. Yes some valuable troops were siphoned off to Yugoslavia, Greece, and to a lesser extent Italy and France to deal with Partisan fighters but the numbers were not that high.
You have totally missed the point sunbeam.
April 9th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
You have totally missed the point sunbeam.
How you figure, your statement is a bit Vague? If the war in the east Germany had ~ 150 German divisions (with allies) for frontline duty and 6 SS divisions to contain partisans and enforce policy in the occupied which contained some of the USSR's most densely populated regions. I.e. Ukraine, Belorussia, western Russia.

In truth it's a bit more complex. Some citizens of the occupied USSR went over to the German side and were assigned to assist in these policing and rear guard activities. Note: other than the Cossacks most Soviets that choose to serve Germany were not assigned to fighting units.

Source " Blood upon the Snow #5"
also http://www.axishistory.com/books/134...n-world-war-ii
April 9th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: Numbers don't tell the total story


[quote=lljadw;670117]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
Stalin did a good job of occupying Poland, East Germany, Hungry, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic states, parts of Finland, Strong influence on N Korea, etc. until his death in 1953, why not Hitler? [/QUOTE

1) There was no etc .


2) )Because Hitler needed also to occupy France,Britain,Belgium,Holland,Poand,.... and the European part of the SU.:300 million people and Stalin only 100 million .


3) Because Germany had 80 million inhabitants and the SU more than the double

4) Because Hitler would need to have permanently a WM of 4 million : 1 million
in the East,1 million in the other occupied territories, one million in Germany and 1 million for the LW and the KM,which is 5 % of the population : imagine the US with armed forces of 15 million,for several generations ,till 2100.
The numbers aren't the total story.
Germany was outnumber when it invaded the west in 1940. It was outnumbered by 2 > 1 in operation Barbarossa. The ratio of Germans to that of the Soviet army's stayed at roughly slightly over 2 to 1 for the duration of the war until ~ 45, when the radio of the Reds solders to German solders skyrocketed.

However if they won they likely would need a million troops to enforce the extermination, forced deportation and resettlement policies for a few short years. After these excesses were completed with typical Nazi efficacy this number would likely drop to a fraction of what was needed to rule the USSR while the excesses were being carried out. I don't think t would have taken them more than 3 to 5 years to complete there Nazification of the European portion of the USSR.
 


Similar Topics
Japan and Germany co-operation in WW2
U.S. Issues Warning On Terrorism In Germany
China plans to invade US!
Allies and neutrals in WW2
How important was Germany right before WWII?