My thoughts turned to the Eastern Front. After the World War II, the Soviets themselves did not even know how they were able to win the war. The several hundred German Generals that were captured by the Allies did not know how they had lost the war, together they concocted a pastiche of feeble alibis in an attempt to explain what happened, when they were pressured to do so, by various means, by their new employers – the United Nations. There were no actual records of what actually happened, nobody knows what actually happened, so the Americans invented the ‘records’ and the ‘documents’ in the 1980’s. Up until that time, the explanation as to what happened during Operation Barbarossa was based only on ‘eye-witness’ reports from the Germans. (See Jonathan M House). The German Generals stated their three major alibis as being:
Hitler was incompetent and interfered with military matters;
Extreme weather and terrain;
Waves of fanatical Soviet Soldiers.
In regards to the first point, Hitler was Supreme Commander of all German Armed Forces, or so he was meant to be according to the records. So then, I would remind the German Generals of their Oath: ʻI swear to God this sacred oath to the Führer of the German Reich and Volkes, Adolf Hitler, Supreme Commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath.ʼ To claim that Adolf Hitler was incompetent is contrary in the first instance because his military record proves him to be the greatest military commander of all time and the Supreme Commander, therefore any disobedience is punishable by death, this is in accordance with the Third Reich military standards. Basically if Hitler was indeed Supreme Commander then he cannot be incompetent as Supreme Commander, because all those under him had elected him as Leader and vowed to serve him unconditionally till death. The Generals should not have sworn the oath if they did not believe it! In this case they are liars and traitors. The oath does not say that the brave soldier should surrender his weapons to the enemy and then lie about what happened afterwards for the rest of his life!
The second point of extreme weather and terrain is a moot point; no General blames the weather and terrain for a loss when the enemy he is fighting is using the same terrain and experiencing the same weather. Hitler, in regards to this, states that the German armed forces were provided with the best equipment and weapons and clothing and shelter and rations and supplies, far better than the Russians, so the German Generals cannot blame the weather for their surrender. I will point out that no surrender under any circumstances is acceptable by Third Reich military standards.
By the end of 1942, with their superior equipment, machinery, better trained troops with more experience and more advanced weaponry, the Germans had gained nearly all of the significant and usable land in Russia; to take back this land would have been much more difficult for the Russians than for the Germans to hold onto it, no matter what the weather conditions were, considering all realistic military endeavour. The weather conditions would have a greater detrimental effect upon an offensive military campaign rather than on a defensive military action and the Germans were in a defensive position and the Russians were thus forced back and had to regain the territory they had lost, so the Russians would have had to take the offensive at the worst time possible. Therefore the adverse weather conditions and terrain in late 1942 and into 1943 would have favoured the German defensive positions and not the Russian counter-offensive attacks. It can also be added that the Germans had the support of the Russian civilians and peasants who welcomed the Germans as their liberators from the yoke of Bolshevik Russia.
From the examples of the first stages of Operation Barbarossa and the Russo-Finnish war, the third point must be a fabrication, because the Russian soldiers were far from fanatical, indeed the Russians themselves claimed that they frequently had to ʻpurgeʼ their ranks, even their generals were ʻpurgedʼ because of lack of fanaticism! It’s hard to imagine from where the great waves of ‘fanatical’, and ‘expertly trained’, and ‘well disciplined’ Russian soldiers materialised from, given that most of the Russian soldiers had been captured – in their millions – by the Germans during the first stages of the war. It would be impossible to replace the first soldiers with even better soldiers, because these first soldiers and officers and generals would not have been able to train and discipline the new Russian recruits in time for the counter-offensive because they had been either captured or killed, according to the ʻmilitary reportsʼ. The entire demographic structure of said ʻreserve armiesʼ was developed in Germany, therefore any notion of the Russians being able to produce great waves of reservist troops would have been reliant on learning that process from the Germans in the first place (As Panzer General Hoth confessed to General von Manstein – “The Russians have learned the art of war from us.”). In any case, I would then submit to the German Generals: how did their own German, first-line, professional, battle-experienced troops, lose to ill-trained Russian reservist troops, whom had no battle experience? How did the Russians somehow manage to muster, from sparsely populated areas deep inside their own wilderness, a fully professional and experienced fighting force adopted from a German system? Where did these phantom armies of fanatical Russian troops come from? One can draw all the imaginary army groups with graphics and glyphs on maps but that is not evidence. Maps and graphics are not evidence, neither are films and war propaganda footage, especially when they are produced years, and sometimes decades, after the war has ended. I submit that the greater part of Russia, where the greater demographics of Russians were located and where all significant infrastructure and navigable land had already been liberated by the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS, liberated in the sense that it was under the control of Germany and the population therein along with all infrastructure, resources and so on, was under the firm control of the Germans which had the full support of the Russian civilian population, which were, for the most part, of German descent themselves (as it was the Germanic peoples that originally settled the Russian lands). And I would also point out that Moscow had been cut off from Leningrad and Stalingrad, and that 90% of all Russian infrastructure, farming land, sea ports, factories, roads and railways had already been captured and were in German hands. I might add that the Germans had also taken the oil refineries in the Caucasus, and so where did Russian produce their oil? In the non-oil producing region of the Ural mountains? Yet regardless of the geographics, petroleum is synthetically produced! Which is the great secret of the petroleum industry. The technology to produce oil and petroleum did not come from Russia but came from Germany. Oilfields are a myth created by the oil industry; in the 21st Century, it is now known, that all oil and petroleum is produced in factories and distilleries, and that the Russians, or anybody else, could not have constructed the oil and petroleum synthetically in factories without German assistance, let alone move huge industrial factories and plants around as though they were moving children’s blocks of lego pieces.