TheGeorgian wrote: Vann7 wrote:
....Napoleon .... WW2
Man reading this makes every historian either hurt inside or grin ....
Like you can't simply come up with "Russia defeated Napoleon - who wiped whole of Europe" just like that .... as if Russians weren't buttkicked from the European battlefield straight back to where they came from. Up until Borodino, most engagements between French and Russian Empire ended up with Russian army defeated or retreating. Borodino was a retreat too. What defeated Napoleon in the end, wasn't Russian army, but his overambitious plans, at that point he was already delusional enough to not care about his men anymore - related to Russian winter and supply shortage. Just a quarter of his original army he gathered for the invasion was present at Borodino. Half his troops defected or died by sickness. Yeah, there was some partisan action like Davydov, Kudashev etc that were constantly stinging Napoleon's army, but really that wasn't so decicive + it was mostly during their retreat. Russians would have been better off if they had someone like Suvorov leading their army ....
About WWII. It were not 8 friggin million German troops LOL, it were something around 3.4 - 4.5 ( latter one in mid-war period ) million, including Romanian, Italian, Finnish, Hungarian etc. More or less ~ 3 million were actual Germans. If it were 8 million troops, they would have won. Soviets had less troops, but 5 times as many tanks, aircraft and artillery. If Germans really had twice as much like you claim, the war would have been over in no time.
THINK...BEFORE...POST... - That should become a rule or something.
I'm not going to talk about Napoleon because that was so far in the past... Mentioning him is a joke (to all sides, not only you). Russia now cannot be compared with Russia then, plain and simple. It would be like comparing the US militia during the Revolutionary Way to their current forces, they are completely different.
Let me mention that I historically love WW2, and that I've always been fascinated with Nazi Germany (by no means a neo-Nazi). Troops had nothing to do with why Germany lost, at all. They were so focused on building "big offense" that they completely blanked out when it came to what they needed most, defense. Just look at what an idiot Hitler really was... He wanted tanks the size of small buildings, cannons the height of hills, and numbers that only the Allies could muster. In my honest opinion, German could've won the war with more preparation, smarter generals and leaders, better defense, and by not waking up the Soviet bear. Another thing to keep in mind is their bad favoritism towards weapons they didn't need. Hitler and top officials mothballed the Me 262 for ~1 year due to the success of the 109 in Poland. That one year was crucial, and would've meant a faster development, and another 700-1000 jets in the air by the end of the war. Even the now legendary Tiger tanks were a mistake, as Panthers were not only superior in most aspects, but easier to make, cheaper, and much, much more reliable (even then they were maintenance hogs compared with the Sherman's and T-34's). What could be their worst mistake when it came to their weapons, was, believe it or not, Hitlers doubts about U-boats. Earlier in the war, he wanted large and heavy surface ships, but in reality they needed more U-boats. Admiral Dörnitz eventually got top Nazi officials on board, but it was still too late. That time would've meant less money wasted, more time murdering Allied ships with their subs, and more subs in the waters. I know it may seem like the Nazis were all for the boats, but trust me when I say that wasn't true in the beginning! Anyway, back to the topic of troops. The Nationality of the troops doesn't mean thing, as long as they fit the requirements and got the same training, they would be just as good. Don't forget that the Soviets also had a mix of nationalities in the Red Army, so if it really means all that much to you..... Besides, Germany didn't have the money or resources to support many more troops, never-mind more armored divisions to back them up... The Soviets did have a larger amount of troops (I don't know how you think otherwise) and many more amor divisions, artillery divisions, and even more access to oil. Germany, for the most part, had superior weapon technology. However, their tech was often unreliable, was incapable of getting through Russian land, and was very expensive. Many people said that they should've built more numbers of smaller vehicles, but they didn't have the resources to do so. Even if they had "eight million troops", they still wouldn't of won.... WW2 showed that vehicles were the new king of the battlefield, and the Eastern Front was no exception.
To sum it up, Nazi Germany was to small a country to maintain a large empire! Troops aren't going to change that.