Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Red Chief wrote:Speedy, I've just watched some documentary about War in Europe. There is an episode about Dunkirk in this British film, as well. According to the film, weapons of BEF was much worse than German's ones - some armored vehicles against panzers. It proved that not only Russians were incapable on the initial stage of the war.

The folder of the disk impressed me even more than the film itself.
In the foreground we can see colour photo of Churchill in parade military uniform, on the background we can see blind images of cartoonish Hitler and Stalin who hid behind the Churchil's Victory gesture. Looking at the photo young generation could think that Churchil won both of them: Hitler and Stalin. It's a witty banter but I must say that British propaganda, especially military one, existed and exists. So I'm not surprized your reaction. Speedy, patriotism is good but separate it from propaganda please. It's good only during a war. All wars were over so far.

It's not just propaganda, Russia was no friend of the UK either before or after the war. We were just uneasy allies against the Axis powers. It's not strange that Stalin and Hitler should both be shown in the background.

The Russian army was not just equipped with poor weaponry, as was most of Europe including the UK, but also often only had one gun for every two or three men they sent into battle. But of course the Germans were vastly superior in the early stages of the war in Europe. That was really throught their genius fastmoving Blitzkrieg tactics than any true weaponry superiority. They sent the British home there's no doubt. I don't shout propaganda, I know the truth.

No-one could match the power of the German Panzer and Tiger tanks later in the war, the 88mm gun was just too powerful. But the large number of medium tanks possessed by the Allies worked well.

By the way, every power that took a major part in winning the war claims their effort as most important. But the Americans are the worst by far. Did you ever watch any American war films?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_II
The superiority of German second-generation tanks was not met until the end of the war, but the Germans had already lost the initiative by 1943. The sheer power of American production, superior combined-arms tactics and German errors on all levels meant that the American forces generally prevailed. Interestingly, this was the same pattern that was seen at the beginning of the war, when weakly armored and undergunned German panzers crushed their much more powerful French, British and Soviet opponents in the early blitzkriegs.

By the way, I forgot to say, the Russian T34 tank was excellent, tough and reliable and there were many of them.

This film is about War in Europe. At that we were allies. Certainly I know who was, is and will be the main enemies of Russia. Now I doubt whether we needed such allies. Americans? Yes? Brits? Definitely not.

As for tanks. Yes, Tiger was almost impossible to destroy by usual tanks. The majority of these tanks were destroyed from air when they ran out of fuel. It happened due to allies had destroyed the majority of plant which produced artificial liquid fuel from coal. However those tanks were produced in quantity 500 pieces only and so had a little influence. Other German's tanks were more out-of-date, than the Soviet tanks.
The Soviet union produced several hundred thousand average tanks T-34. It was the only tank that produced on the conveyor. It was a strong technical advantage. Do you really think, what it was possible to win such war having one rifle per three persons? By the end of 1943 we completely exsanguinated Germany and shifted the battles outside our borders. At that time they started drafting fourteen-year teenagers and producing armored vehicles instead of tanks

Red Chief wrote:This film is about War in Europe. At that we were allies. Certainly I know who was, is and will be the main enemies of Russia. Now I doubt whether we needed such allies. Americans? Yes? Brits? Definitely not.

As for tanks. Yes, Tiger was almost impossible to destroy by usual tanks. The majority of these tanks were destroyed from air when they ran out of fuel. It happened due to allies had destroyed the majority of plant which produced artificial liquid fuel from coal. However those tanks were produced in quantity 500 pieces only and so had a little influence. Other German's tanks were more out-of-date, than the Soviet tanks.
The Soviet union produced several hundred thousand average tanks T-34. It was the only tank that produced on the conveyor. It was a strong technical advantage. Do you really think, what it was possible to win such war having one rifle per three persons? By the end of 1943 we completely exsanguinated Germany and shifted the battles outside our borders. At that time they started drafting fourteen-year teenagers and producing armored vehicles instead of tanks

The Russians halted the German advance through scorched earth tactics, denying the advancing enemy any logistical help, and stretching their re-supply lines to the maximum, especialy due to the fact that German trains could not run on Russian rail gauge. Also due to the coming of winter conditions, making the dangerous German fast movng battle tactics impossible. Also through sheer weight of numbers, they threw vast numbers of troops, hence the horrific casualties. They won by attrition. Also each German tank might destroy 5-10 Russian tanks before being destroyed itself, but the Russian tanks kept coming because they were quick and simple to build, so the numbers were always there.

About the ' one rifle to three russian troops' , I will research that better. I have certainly seen and heard it a few times. Let's see the reality of it.

The Alliance including Russia was a matter of convenience for all sides fighting the Axis. There was some cooperation during the war, but immediately afterwards the US and UK saw that Stalin woud not in truth change his plans for Empire expansion, so the Cold War started. Stalin was still intent on Marxist-Leninist world domination, and the extinction of capitalism. Not an ally the West ever wanted, but instead there was temporary mutual need.

I also agree that our countries will not be allies again in a major conflict in our lifetimes. Not a problem.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSnazipact.htm

Speedhump wrote:About the ' one rifle to three russian troops' , I will research that better. I have certainly seen and heard it a few times. Let's see the reality of it.

This reality concerns the First World War. Probably it's the root of this urban legend. By 1943 we produces more automatic guns than Germans did. It's a merit of our women and children.

Red Chief wrote:

Speedhump wrote:About the ' one rifle to three russian troops' , I will research that better. I have certainly seen and heard it a few times. Let's see the reality of it.

This reality concerns the First World War. Probably it's the root of this urban legend. By 1943 we produces more automatic guns than Germans did. It's a merit of our women and children.

Russia anyway certainly 'tooled up' for war quickly once it became involved. But in 1941-2:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RvNy ... #PPA120,M1

Pages 120 AND 121,

It isn't a secret that in the first a few months of war we lost a big part of our army and the most part of our planes which had been destroyed in the airports. The same happened everywhere in Europe. The only difference was that Russians didn't have an island to run. As a result Moscow's militia fought for Moscow.. Certainly they had been trained badly. So casualties were enormous. This book does not explain the permanent series of victories after Stalingrad's battle in 1943. The Stalingrad's encirclement hit Germany deadly. The battle near Kursk was purely tank's battle - the first in the history. It would be impossible to win whatever advantage in infantry you had.
As for German's tanks superiority you are definitely not right.
T-34 couldn't win against Tiger and Panther, but it was more modern than vast majority of the rest of German panzers. Moreover it had diesel engine. As you know diesel fuel is not so easy to fire as petrol. So it was much more viable. Another advantage that it's repairable just behind the front line, but Germans delivered Tigers for repair to Germany by train.
As for weaponry. I agree that America had strongly helped us with trucks Studebeker and Dodge 3/4 and in lesser degree with planes. All the rest was domestic production. On the other hand England bought most of weapons in US, didn't it?
Anyway when was the era of special relationship between US and UK really started? You told about lend-lease, which you repaid to 2006 only, but I read in a British book about some credits for purchasing American goods before The Great Depression.

I think Tiger was pretty unreliable. Also as the war went on the quality of German steel deteriorated and their tanks were not as indestructible as before.

Tiger was a very good tank hull down, in defense mode only. Panther was a different beast.

I think I'm right. If a detachment of T-34's came against a Tiger or Panther in open territory they would win the day thru numbers, but some would be destroyed. One of two would probably get a flank shot on the German and that would be that, finally.

The Allies used a lot of US equipment, the M3 and M4 tanks were everywhere I think.

About pre-Depression era US/UK finance I don't have knowledge. I can't think of any reason for it, I don't think the first war was such a financial drain on UK reserves?

Speedhump wrote:I think Tiger was pretty unreliable. Also as the war went on the quality of German steel deteriorated and their tanks were not as indestructible as before.

Tiger was a very good tank hull down, in defense mode only. Panther was a different beast.

I think I'm right. If a detachment of T-34's came against a Tiger or Panther in open territory they would win the day thru numbers, but some would be destroyed. One of two would probably get a flank shot on the German and that would be that, finally.

The Allies used a lot of US equipment, the M3 and M4 tanks were everywhere I think.

About pre-Depression era US/UK finance I don't have knowledge. I can't think of any reason for it, I don't think the first war was such a financial drain on UK reserves?

Speedy, your assumption isn't confirmed by facts. English book (as soon as you don't trust any Russian one) tell us following:

On July 12, 1943 some 800 T-34s were to confront more than 600
German tanks at Prokhorovka in the Kursk salient, in the largest tank battle of the war.

It's not clear how many from those tanks Tigers were, but the quantity of the Soviet tanks was not suppressing, but was enough for the victory.
And one more citation about Soviet progress in critical 1943 of war.

Between July and October 1943, the number of (German) irreplaceable losses in the east (Kursk and Dnieper) had reached 365.000. Kursk involved 1,3 million Soviet troops compared with 900.000 Germans, while on the Dniepr in October the Red Army had 2,6 million troops against 1,2 million Germans, and 4:1 superiority in tanks and guns.

You can see that situation for Germans had been changes from approximately equal to desperate for a few months. It happened a year before opening Western fronts in 1944.

Red Chief wrote:

Speedhump wrote:I think Tiger was pretty unreliable. Also as the war went on the quality of German steel deteriorated and their tanks were not as indestructible as before.

Tiger was a very good tank hull down, in defense mode only. Panther was a different beast.

I think I'm right. If a detachment of T-34's came against a Tiger or Panther in open territory they would win the day thru numbers, but some would be destroyed. One of two would probably get a flank shot on the German and that would be that, finally.

The Allies used a lot of US equipment, the M3 and M4 tanks were everywhere I think.

About pre-Depression era US/UK finance I don't have knowledge. I can't think of any reason for it, I don't think the first war was such a financial drain on UK reserves?

Speedy, your assumption isn't confirmed by facts. English book (as soon as you don't trust any Russian one) tell us following:

On July 12, 1943 some 800 T-34s were to confront more than 600
German tanks at Prokhorovka in the Kursk salient, in the largest tank battle of the war.

It's not clear how many from those tanks Tigers were, but the quantity of the Soviet tanks was not suppressing, but was enough for the victory.
And one more citation about Soviet progress in critical 1943 of war.

Between July and October 1943, the number of (German) irreplaceable losses in the east (Kursk and Dnieper) had reached 365.000. Kursk involved 1,3 million Soviet troops compared with 900.000 Germans, while on the Dniepr in October the Red Army had 2,6 million troops against 1,2 million Germans, and 4:1 superiority in tanks and guns.

You can see that situation for Germans had been changes from approximately equal to desperate for a few months. It happened a year before opening Western fronts in 1944.

Thanks for the information. I also can't find how may Tigers and Panthers were present, but the side were almost equal in numbers (in tank divisions anyway. Although the tank battle was huge this was also an infantry and artillery battle). Anyway the Russian tanks carried the day, thank God.

I have always had a prejudice against Russian records from the past, you must understand why:

“A common thread throughout my work is the desire to bring to light the voices of the average Russian soldier, the private in the trenches,” Britton said. “They were banned from writing about their experiences for decades and, during the war, they were not permitted to keep diaries or notebooks.

“So, for decades, German sources dominated our understanding of the Eastern Front.”

http://hitlernews.cloudworth.com/local/6763.html

It could be a good book to read, it was published in 2007 according to the web article.


Lastly, and I don't intend to keep bashing on about it, but you did shout me down before in anothet thread. Hitler may well have won on the Eastern Front if he had not had to keep armies of the Reich on two other fronts. The Western Front had to be well manned even though it was not attacked until later, as you rightly say. Also making Hitler fight on a second front in North Africa from 1940 onwards helped divide his forces.

Anyway, I think I don't want to consider the Eastern Front any more for the time being. The horrors we all know, the biggest land battle the world ever saw. Hitler and Stalin both were men who would throw massive amounts of human life away with no second thought.

the nazis U boat is a great treat during the World War until the US made the submarines.

portland wrote:the nazis U boat is a great treat during the World War until the US made the submarines.

This is only correct in small part.

U-boats were mainly a threat to merchant shipping, the war could have been ended quickly if Allied forces had not been able to arrange re-supply.
Cargo ships sailing alone were being sunk at a much faster rate than they could be built.

The U-boat threat was very much reduced when the Allies started to use a convoy system guarded by several warships, mostly destroyers and one or two other ships, maybe light cruisers, etc.

If the Nazis had been able to stop the supply ships they would have starved Britain into submission and also prevented around 20 percent of overseas re-supply to Russia via the Barents Sea (where my father was operating in the British Navy, on a destroyer, helping in his small part to keep the Russian war effort working).

The British decoded the German Enigma code very often and could divert convoys away from german wolf packs of u-boats and also send warships to destroy them.

+++
Barents Sea convoys sailed from the Uk and from Iceland:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O129-A ... nvoys.html
Early shipments proved of little use, but the supplies of US trucks, boots, and telephone equipment shipped up to the beginning of 1942 were, almost certainly, of critical importance to the USSR during the fighting that summer in the German–Soviet war though Soviet historians were only just beginning to acknowledge the part played by Lend-Lease before the USSR was dissolved in December 1991. Although the tonnage delivered was small at first, the convoys were—apart from the strategic air offensive against Germany—the only weapon Churchill possessed with which to counter Stalin's demands for a Second Front (see Grand Alliance).
+++

Speedhump wrote:Anyway, I think I don't want to consider the Eastern Front any more for the time being. The horrors we all know, the biggest land battle the world ever saw. Hitler and Stalin both were men who would throw massive amounts of human life away with no second thought.

Nobody could have won the war by staying on the island most of the time and having only 300.000 dead in the end. You were mostly spectators of that bloody show despite that Churchil's victory gesture. That's why that collage looks so ridiculous.

Anyway I understand your feeling.

War is a business of young guys - the best medication from wrinkles(c) One Russian singer.

Speedhump wrote:If the Nazis had been able to stop the supply ships they would have starved Britain into submission and also prevented around 20 percent of overseas re-supply to Russia via the Barents Sea (where my father was operating in the British Navy, on a destroyer, helping in his small part to keep the Russian war effort working).
+++

It was the real help. It's strange but British veterans of those convoys have more respect rather in Russia, than in Britain. Recently a few veterans have been invited to Murmansk to an anniversary of convoys. The Russian government has paid for their air tickets and accomodation in Murmansk . Those veterans have been very touched, because it looks like nobody remembers about them in UK on the government's level.

My last word.

British troops were fighting all over the world. What does it matter that our resources were stretched and the US had unlimited resources? Of course one of our main contributions was our intellience, and I don't just mean brain power. At the start of World War II, British ASDIC (SONAR) technology was given free to the United States. Also it was the British who first used radar as a defence against aircraft attack. Also it was British who captured the first german Enigma code machine and the British who broke the code (despite ridiculous American fiction films which claim the honour...).

It was the British who completely broke the German air force in the Battle of Britain in the skies of the UK, while Britain was forced into a purely defensive action.

From 1941 onwards Britain poured immense resources into its fleets of strategic bombers. The expense was vast. Between 1942 and D-Day, the RAF bombers were easily the most powerful and spectacular single weapon in Allied hands in Western Europe. Whether you like the bombings or not, they were a key to sapping German morale and crushing its industry. Just as Hitler was trying to do to the UK. He destroyed the city of Coventry with indiscriminate bombs.

British and Indian forces tied up the Imperial Japanese Army in Burma for the duration of the war.

British, ANZAC and South African troops first drove the Italians out of North Africa and then defeated the Germans at El Alamein in 1942.

You really have a small minded view of history. As I said, it's those Russian history books mate. The side who had the most of their people killed did the most? Silly really.....

I don't intend to open up this conversation again. That's me finished so carry on .

It was the British who completely broke the German air force in the Battle of Britain in the skies of the UK, while Britain was forced into a purely defensive action.

I agree that it was the main reason why Hitler didn't capture UK. It was not due to the eternal love to British, as you said before. You couldn't have won Germany by fighting alone. We could have.

From 1941 onwards Britain poured immense resources into its fleets of strategic bombers. The expense was vast. Between 1942 and D-Day, the RAF bombers were easily the most powerful and spectacular single weapon in Allied hands in Western Europe. Whether you like the bombings or not, they were a key to sapping German morale and crushing its industry. Just as Hitler was trying to do to the UK. He destroyed the city of Coventry with indiscriminate bombs.

It was my joke with a feeling of regret. Of course I estimates a harm from bombing very high. Besides Dresden, allies bombed synthetics petrol plants, plants of Krupp, Daimler and Messer-Schmidt. As I remember US 4-engines bombers made the main contribution though.

British, then defeated the Germans at El Alamein in 1942.

They were Italians mostly, as you know. That's why you won. The peaceful Italian soldiers did have nothing in common with German SS panzer Corps, whom Red Army fought with near Prokhorovka.

You really have a small minded view of history. As I said, it's those Russian history books mate. The side who had the most of their people killed did the most? Silly really.....

The side who killed and destroyed the vast majority of German troops and weapons (I showed you that. Play fair.) definitely won War in Europe. Is it better? Nobody could win any war without blood. That's true.

Once Hitler understood that the British would never join him then he fought us. Before that it is quite clearly true that his admiration of Britain was the reason why the Dunkirk evacuation proceeded with minimal casualties. However once Britain had left all her equipment on the French beaches there was no way back into Europe without US help. As you saw, the US was also giving lease-lend to Russia.


Peaceful Italian soldiers

Yes true, they finally came over to our side and then didn't like the idea of fighting to defend their own country...

Italian tanks, one forward gear and three reverse, the old jokes, but with truth behind them.

It is agreed by most historians (outside of Russia anyway) that without the Axis countries needing to man the Western Front awaiting the inevitable invasion (as the US had joined the War) and also defend in Greece where the British were pretending to mount an invasion force but in truth were only sending some troops to help the resistance movement, and also fight in North Africa, Russia would have been trampled by Hitler, the Eastern Front would have been closed before the awful winter came (for which conditions Russian troops were obviously much better prepared) and bogged down the onslaught.

But we do agree that the contribution of Russia to the War effort was huge, the biggest single contribution to the War in terms of men and pain. I never denied that.

It is agreed by most historians (outside of Russia anyway), Russia would have been trampled by Hitler, the Eastern Front would have been closed before the awful winter came (for which conditions Russian troops were obviously much better prepared) and bogged down the onslaught.

Why am I not surprised? One of those "historians" made that ridiculous collage. It's one more LIE which British propaganda cooked.
By the way I quoted British honest book. Facts, stated in that book, show prejudice of "most historians" (if they exists outside your imagination).
Details of the book:
"WORLD WAR II"
H.P. WILLMOTT, ROBIN CROSS, CHARLES MESSENGER
In every bookstore across the U.A.E. now.

It's unfortunate that you follow the blind Russian view (that the rest of the world does not agree with) that Russia and only Russia won the War against Facism. You only echo your madman Putin, known more for his aggression than his intelligence.

http://russianfatcat.blogspot.com/2007/ ... point.html

Any honest account of the battle for Moscow would undermine the Soviet story line of "The Great Patriotic War." Those sanitized versions, now reinforced in the era of President Vladimir Putin, portray Joseph Stalin as a military genius and his people as heroically united against the German invader. (It's no coincidence that Stalin's reputation plummets when there's a period of liberalization in Russia and rises when there's a new clampdown.) But it was Stalin's blunders, incompetence and brutality that made it possible for German troops to approach the outskirts of Moscow—and to kill or capture so many Soviet troops along the way.

Stalin was ultimately saved by Hitler’s even bigger blunders. The German dictator sent his armies into Russia in late June 1941 without winter clothing: the Führer was convinced they would triumph before the weather turned. By mid-July, the Germans had advanced to the Smolensk region, and Hitler’s generals, like the panzer commander Heinz Guderian, wanted to keep driving due east to Moscow, only about 230 miles away. But Hitler ordered them to turn south and take the Ukraine first. They did, losing precious time in the process.

Stalin's mistakes were never mentioned in the official histories. Nor do those accounts admit that if it weren't for Hitler's even greater mistakes, Stalin wouldn't have been able to save his capital—and, quite possibly, might never have prevailed in the larger struggle.

....much of the story of how close Moscow came to falling—a defeat that would likely have transformed the course of the war—has been obscured by decades of deliberately distorted history. Now it's a story that can be told.

Russia got lucky, because the Nazi army was divided between several fronts. I told you twice already.

Nevermind that Stalin 's pact with Hitler gave the Nazi war machine free reign to conquer most of Western Europe in 1940, or that Stalin's dogged insistence that Hitler would never betray him allowed the invaders to methodically encircle the Red Army's corps until they reached the gates of Moscow in December 1941.

Cheats and liars both.

American lend-lease provided the Soviets with hundreds of thousands of light and heavy duty trucks. The Red Army could not have transformed itself from a horse supplied force to a highly mobile war machine without these American imports.

Peaceful Italian soldiers.

Actually I have information from the first hands. Despite being in occupation, my grandma keeps good memory about Italian soldiers. They paid for food and accommodation. They also helped in housework and farm work. They never insulted Russian people, who mostly were women and children in the occupation.
There is even more amazing fact about my grandma's village. There were a strong blizzard in winter 1943. So one Italian officer made an order to disassemble wooden school to use wood for heating houses in the villages. In 1993 he came back to the village and and voluntary financed construction of a new brick school. It was really human deed that touched everyone.

You take a deliberately one-sided view of events, forcing me to do the same. That's how you start arguments on thes forums, I have noticed.

Red Chief wrote:Peaceful Italian soldiers.

Actually I have information from the first hands. Despite being in occupation, my grandma keeps good memory about Italian soldiers. They paid for food and accommodation. They also helped in housework and farm work. They never insulted Russian people, who mostly were women and children in the occupation.
There is even more amazing fact about my grandma's village. There were a strong blizzard in winter 1943. So one Italian officer made an order to disassemble wooden school to use wood for heating houses in the villages. In 1993 he came back to the village and and voluntary financed construction of a new brick school. It was really human deed that touched everyone.

I was agreeing that they are peaceful.

And of course they would not insult the women, because as normal Italians they wanted to get inside their underwear.

Also I did tell you before that the Red Army was badly equipped at some points, another reason for the huge castualties as Stalin told his troops that anyone retreating would find a Russian gun at their head (so they run towards the enemy without even a rifle, almost 2 million Russians died in the battle for Moscow):



http://russianfatcat.blogspot.com/2007/ ... point.html

Excerpt from
By Andrew Nagorski
Newsweek
Sept. 10, 2007 issue
many Soviet troops were sent into battle without guns. Ilya Druzhnikov, a book illustrator dispatched to the front, recalled that there was only one rifle available for every 10 men in his unit. This meant that unarmed soldiers trailed each armed man, waiting for him to fall so that one of them could pick up his weapon.

Speedhump wrote:

Red Chief wrote:Peaceful Italian soldiers.

Actually I have information from the first hands. Despite being in occupation, my grandma keeps good memory about Italian soldiers. They paid for food and accommodation. They also helped in housework and farm work. They never insulted Russian people, who mostly were women and children in the occupation.
There is even more amazing fact about my grandma's village. There were a strong blizzard in winter 1943. So one Italian officer made an order to disassemble wooden school to use wood for heating houses in the villages. In 1993 he came back to the village and and voluntary financed construction of a new brick school. It was really human deed that touched everyone.

I was agreeing that they are peaceful.

And of course they would not insult the women, because as normal Italians they wanted to get inside their underwear.

I was waited for such reply from you, Speedy. It shows one more time how you like stereotypes.
In any other case I could support your joke but I am talking about women and children in the occupation who had actually no rights and man’s protection.

Romanians in the neighboring village had totally different behavior. That’s why local inhabitance has only hate towards them.

Why do stereotypes exist?

Speedhump wrote:http://russianfatcat.blogspot.com/2007/09/stalins-tipping-point.html

Any honest account of the battle for Moscow would undermine the Soviet story line of "The Great Patriotic War." Those sanitized versions, now reinforced in the era of President Vladimir Putin, portray Joseph Stalin as a military genius and his people as heroically united against the German invader. (It's no coincidence that Stalin's reputation plummets when there's a period of liberalization in Russia and rises when there's a new clampdown.) But it was Stalin's blunders, incompetence and brutality that made it possible for German troops to approach the outskirts of Moscow—and to kill or capture so many Soviet troops along the way.

Stalin was ultimately saved by Hitler’s even bigger blunders. The German dictator sent his armies into Russia in late June 1941 without winter clothing: the Führer was convinced they would triumph before the weather turned. By mid-July, the Germans had advanced to the Smolensk region, and Hitler’s generals, like the panzer commander Heinz Guderian, wanted to keep driving due east to Moscow, only about 230 miles away. But Hitler ordered them to turn south and take the Ukraine first. They did, losing precious time in the process.

Stalin's mistakes were never mentioned in the official histories. Nor do those accounts admit that if it weren't for Hitler's even greater mistakes, Stalin wouldn't have been able to save his capital—and, quite possibly, might never have prevailed in the larger struggle.

Hitler made a lot of mistakes but you didn’t indicate the main one. I will quote from another English book:

In 1941 Germany and Japan made two mistakes, which undoubtedly cost them the war. Germany attacked the Soviet Union, and Japan attacked the United States, both quite unexpectedly. Whatever the advantage of surprise attack, the Axis of Germany, Italy and Japan had now forced onto battlefield of the two most powerful nations in the world.
Britain could not possibly defeated Germany without the help of stronger allies, the Soviet Union and the United States.