Search Results
6/9/2025, 2:56:51 AM
>>17746841
>How can you factor something that wasn't tested?
It was tested in the negative, world war 1 had showed the unviability of static warfare infantry based break throughs. Germany may have been the first to really use an armored spearhead to its full effect but saying it was untested is ignoring the mechanics of the plan. The untested bit was the armored formations, not the offensive itself, and the armored formations were only untested in terms of their ability to maintain a break through.
>The Ardenne offensive was a fluke because it only succeded due to outstanding circumstances outside of Germanys control. All the French had to do was put two divisions at Sedan, and the entire offensive would have collapsed.
They didn't though, Germany correctly reading the ineptitude of their opponent and exploiting a weak point doesn't mean the planning was miraculous.
>It was only approved because Hitler forced it to be approved, but few generals believed it would work.
Some of Germany's best* generals believed it would work.
>Yes it was.
Stalin's grip on power was not iron, hell even with Barbarossa occurring exactly as it did in our time had Germany simply put more effort into creating a "Free Russian Army" would have likely caused upwards of 1/3-1/4 of the Red Army to desert. They chauvinistically turned away the White emigrees and Vlasov until it was too late and they were getting desperate.
>Why are you making shit up for an argument?
The May 41 speech is very real, he gave it to the general staff, even called the plan Operation Thunderstorm or something like that. It has been practically scrubbed from the internet given that it sort of affirms the barb was pre-emptive strike and for some reason history is only acceptable if it conforms to our narratives. Do I think barb was pre-emptive? Not in the immediate sense, but an Bolshevik invasion was coming.
>How can you factor something that wasn't tested?
It was tested in the negative, world war 1 had showed the unviability of static warfare infantry based break throughs. Germany may have been the first to really use an armored spearhead to its full effect but saying it was untested is ignoring the mechanics of the plan. The untested bit was the armored formations, not the offensive itself, and the armored formations were only untested in terms of their ability to maintain a break through.
>The Ardenne offensive was a fluke because it only succeded due to outstanding circumstances outside of Germanys control. All the French had to do was put two divisions at Sedan, and the entire offensive would have collapsed.
They didn't though, Germany correctly reading the ineptitude of their opponent and exploiting a weak point doesn't mean the planning was miraculous.
>It was only approved because Hitler forced it to be approved, but few generals believed it would work.
Some of Germany's best* generals believed it would work.
>Yes it was.
Stalin's grip on power was not iron, hell even with Barbarossa occurring exactly as it did in our time had Germany simply put more effort into creating a "Free Russian Army" would have likely caused upwards of 1/3-1/4 of the Red Army to desert. They chauvinistically turned away the White emigrees and Vlasov until it was too late and they were getting desperate.
>Why are you making shit up for an argument?
The May 41 speech is very real, he gave it to the general staff, even called the plan Operation Thunderstorm or something like that. It has been practically scrubbed from the internet given that it sort of affirms the barb was pre-emptive strike and for some reason history is only acceptable if it conforms to our narratives. Do I think barb was pre-emptive? Not in the immediate sense, but an Bolshevik invasion was coming.
Page 1