I didn’t knew that there is such place these day called Stalag 13 … 
There are many things colonel hogan doesn’t know but, unfortunately, in the fullness of time he will probably put most of them on this forum. :rolleyes:
LOL imagine someone ask you : where are you from ??
You : oww what a stupid question … of course from Stalag 13 :D:D
Or from arrse his head is firmly implanted in…
Hmm that was a little bit rude … :police:
Hi, there !! 
One thing that should be considered is that the Red Army great blow went
down by easily routing the Italians and Rumanians, whom were very poorly
equipped and not exactly remarkable fighters, totally unable of being valid
opponents to the red avalanche. That part of the axis front was too weak
anyway, a sort of “invitation” for the Red Army.
The understanding that the encirclement was inevitable and Stalingrad lost,
could have saved the Germans men and equipment, both too precious to be
sacrificed in a hopeless effort. The Russians could afford to lose men, tanks,
aircraft, etc., the germans not, but they didn’t quite pick this point.
Bye.
Bruno.
Yep agree with you if there was german armies on the flanks of 6th army the situation may differ from what we know from history or maybe instead splitting armies ( one going for Stalingrad other to Baku ) Hitler had to concentrate on one single object .
I agree as well.
I knew Col Hogan, and sir, he was no Colonel Hogan!
LOL this is getting more and more fun :lol:
Hitler’s fanatism and turning the battle of Stalingrad a personal affair between him and Stalin doomed the German 6th Army. The german army fought with valor and courage but the numbers, better equipment as well as Napoleon said “Don’t fight many times with the same enemy because he will learn your Art of War” made the Red Army win and turn the tide of the war. Oh I forgot they also had Zhukov an extraordinary general, Paulus was good too but as a Chief of Staff man not as a field commander
For Brunoz: Italians i agree they always have been bad soldiers but romanians had always fought with valour and courage lack of equipment amunition and let’s admit good head commanders lead to their failure and i’m sure if you check records many more italians routed and deserted than romanians
That is an unfair overgeneralisation. Many Italians fought well in WWI and WWII. Their good units were as good as any other nation’s.
The problem for Italian soldiers was often a lack of commitment to the national cause, which reflects political and other divisions in Italian society, not a lack of courage or potential military ability.
Quick off-shoot question: At what point was Italy reunited from the many small nation-states to the entirety of Italy?
I wasn’t aware it had happened yet, which tends to be supported by the disastrous history of the brief supposedly national Italian governments since WWII. 
The Vatican is still stuck in the middle of Italy as a separate state. This makes about as much sense as having a religious state stuck in the middle of America which isn’t subject to national customs and laws. Such as Utah.
Nominally there was a sort of unification under the King around 1860 after one of Garibaldi’s excursions to redress Sicilian corruption (hard to believe, I know, but the Sicilians were crooks and brigands then :rolleyes: ).
Then, and this is the Franks’ or the Germans’ fault, it all got bound up with Bismarck and one of the Napoleons which resulted in French? Austrian? German? troops being withdrawn from Italy to fight someone somewhere else and the Italians did a sneak attack on the undefended Vatican or Rome or somewhere and Bingo! Mussolini was born.
(This historical summary has not been certified as accurate or even vaguely reliable by anyone with a brain.)
Ah, ok… my brain was just about to explode…
I’m pretty sure that Mussolini was waaayy past any Napoleon, though Bismarck could still be right.
The war you were talking about must be the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859 - though I’m pretty sure Bismarck wasn’t involved as only France and Sardinia fought against Austria.
EDIT: According to Wiki, the Italian unification started in 1815 and ended in 1871, when Prussia shut out France through its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. So Bismarck was kind of involved, after all…
It’s not important to us Anglos.
They’re all Continental, so who cares what brand they are, or when they arose?
A refreshing absence of German military advisers which, alas, was not apparent in places as varied as Mexico and China in later years.
Hah!
I knew Bismarck was involved somewhere!
I don’t wanna split hairs here, but technically, back then, Austrians would still be considered Germans.
It’s not important to us Anglos.
They’re all Continental, so who cares what brand they are, or when they arose?
It isn’t our fault that you Anglos are ignorant to any place that you couldn’t enslave or send your prisoners to. :D;)
Hah!
I knew Bismarck was involved somewhere!
Lucky guess ;). There’s like a 50% chance of Bismarck being involved in any event occurring in Europe between 1850-1900.
:mrgreen: