Profile of robertmikael

Does anybody know when Hitler took direct control of the military forces in the East?

Hitler could do whatever he wanted after he received the powers of a dictator, but he did take complete control of the military in 1938, when he became the Commander-in-Chief. After that point he actually was the Warlord of the Germans. The only time he did not intervene in the decisions was when he fled from his hiding place during the Sovjet offensive 1944, and the German generals could take their own decisions. The comical thing is that during that time when Hitler was not involved in decisions, the German generals succeeded to stop the Sovjet assault in many places.

The biggest issue with the invasion of the USSR was Hitler's and the Nazi's policy regarding slavs. Many people of ethnic minorities (or local majorities) in the western portions of the USSR greeted the Germans as liberators. Unfortunately, they were treated like the subhumans the Nazis perceived them to be. Treating them better would've reduced the amount of partisans in harassing German supply lines and potentially increased manpower available to the Germans.

It's important to understand that this type of war on such a large scale was never fought in Europe before. Napoleon wasn't declaring his desire to annihilate a certain race of people. Nationalism is a terrible thing, really.

This is not nationalism, but nazism. The Prussians (1525-) and the Germans in WW1 were nationalists, but they could have jews and other minorities to serve them, but the Nazis did not. That was utterly stupid, because for example more Ukrainians could have fight on the German side against Stalin. The Germans could have millions of Ukrainians to fight for them instead of against them.

This doesn't sit very well with the doctrine of siege warfare and also doesn't consider the Russians ingenuity or will to live.

The Siege of St Petersberg/Leningrad illustrates their tenacity but also the tragedy to the civilian populace. The Russians would have found a way to supply their combatants (at least).

In addition to this the area they needed to encircle Leningrad was much smaller than that around Moscow- they still didn't even get the gaps closed up and a trickle of supplies was able to get through.

Moscow- possible to take if the red Army sallied forth & was utterly destroyed (bloody well not likely). A protracted siege would have been basically impossible.

Leningrad was not completely surrounded all the time, but it suffered hard during the years 1941-1944. Also the Finns could have done more, for example advancing further against the city or cut the communications completely between Murmansk and the rest of Russia. Mannerheim chose not to do it.

But, I say it once again, the Germans did not need to surround the city of Moscow completely to have an impact on the transports to Moscow. The inhabitants and soldiers need food and materials to survive.

I think both Stormless and A_E did a great job in continuing the stream and not embarassing themselves or somebody else when they were pranked in this way. The trolling was in itself quite funny, because it worked and the casters became silent and after a while put up a screen, that abrupted the stream. Barton's and Sprice's trolling can't be illegal, even if it is morally questionable to have same names and almost same commanders as the finalists and to play a game at the same time. And they should know this (and probably do know).

I do not know if had noticed the trolling if I were the caster and had been in the same situation as Stormless and A_E. Probably not, and I have received teaching and instruction to see and notice things like this in other contexts. So I don't think we can blame the casters for this.

If we must blame someone and find a scapegoat, it is the system itself. Barton and Sprice showed that the system in ESL was vulnerable, because they could do this. I don't know who is responsible for this system. The casters can't be hold responsible for to check the every players steam-id, because their task is to cast the game, and nothing else. There must be some other system for checking this in the future, for example a password for every game, which is sent only to players in that specific game and to the official casters.

Again you are being an armchair general. To attack units need to be at high levels of supply and readiness. The consumption of fuel and ammunition while on the attack are orders of magnitude greater than what is necessary for defense. A unit at 70-80% of its strength but at 20-30% of it's ammunition and fuel reserves is in no shape to attack. But that would be optimistic compared to what we know of the forces that reached Moscow. Panzer divisions at the end of Typhoon were at 25% tank strength. The artillery was down to 10% of the supply needed for the missions asked of it. Fuel for even those few vehicles left was in short (to no) supply.

I have never been an armchair general and will never be. I try to understand things, therefore I ask questions. You have said all this in another words earlier, but not given proofs or answered my questions that I have asked earlier (of course you can still answer them).

I try in an another way. B.H. Liddell Hart writes (History of the Second World War 1970, page 168): "So the push for Moscow was resumed on November 15, when there was a momentary improvement in the weather. But after two weeks' struggle in mud and snow, it was brought to a halt twenty miles short of Moscow."
Let say the weather had been much better, and all the 2 weeks struggle had been in extremely good weather, could they have reached further? The fact is that they struggled for 2 weeks and used fuel and other resources, as they could have done if the weather would have been better. Or does the supply line end somewhere where the advancing could not reach further, where and why?

Advancing TO Moscow is not enough. You need to arrive with enough force to encircle Moscow, which takes much more, and is much more complicated, than just advancing those 50-100km even if you are doing it against weak defenses. The Germans were better equipped, and in a stronger position, in Stalingrad, which is a town in comparison to Moscow. yet they fared poorly.

In Moscow they would not have been going up against weak defenses. They were going up against prepared and strengthened defenses as well as a strategic reserve built up for the purpose of a counter attack. And they were doing it with minimal supplies and strength and at the end of a thin and tenuous supply line.

In fact I want to change my argument. The Germans were LUCKY they didn't accomplish more and faster. Had they reached Moscow by the time they ended up starting Operation Typhoon, you would probably have AGC now at the far end of their supply, which is now cut off by the Rasputitza, while the Soviets have their best infraxtructure (that leading to Moscow) available to them. How well would AGC at Moscow have fared without supply for 8 weeks? it might have brought about the German defeat even earlier.

Ok, we have discussed also this earlier. I say, if the Germans had advanced 100km further, they would have surrounded Moscow and cut off the city from the rest of the Sovjet Union, and by that action they would had bring the city into starvation.

You don't give proofs for your claims, you only say that they were at the end of their supply line. But I ask again: How would that 50-100km matter dramatically? Or where exactly did the German supply line reach a point that they can't advance further, and why?