Comments by "Mitch Richards" (@mitchrichards1532) on "Did the Russian Winter beat the Germans? And more... TIK Q&A 2" video.

Thats an incredibly simplistic way to make an excuse for the Nazi murder of 2.8 million Soviet POWs...and way off the mark. The Nazis planned to murder those Soviet POWs from the start and its documented.
3
Rus religion was brought by Eastern Orthodox Byzantium, not Rome. Get a clue...
2
Your narrative would improve with the use of common doctrinal terms that provide more clarity. Example; "weather and terrain adversely effecting operational reach". The Summer rains caused degraded trafficability on the limited road net of the Soviet Union, specifically on the approaches and exits to river crossings. These vital links became logistical bottlenecks and served to limit Wehrmacht operational reach. The direct effect on the strategic picture was to allow the Red Army to withdraw, and/or prepare new forces that would otherwise have been encircled and destroyed. Overall, this extended the campaign into a period where the weather would not allow logistical support of major operations, leading to premature culmination of Typhoon and critical over-extension.
2
Horses were really not an issue, the key to German logistics was the railroad. Logistics works in echelons, the rail lines carry the bulk supplies to the Army railhead, trucks carry it to Corps depots, trucks carry it to Divisions, trucks carry it to Brigade level, then you may or may not have horses. The Infantry divisions used a lot of horses to drag artillery, field kitchens, equipment wagons, etc., but still had trucks for connecting back to Corps depots. Horses only operated at the tactical/short range level. There were no long roads back to Germany full of horses.
2
The problem was transportation. The Germans had winter clothing but couldn't get it forward due to the limited cargo capacity available. The priority is fuel, ammunition and food, then everything else. Most trucks will cube out (space available) before they weigh out (load capacity) and there just wasn't a way to get the necessary winter equipment forward.
1
@frostroxie2740 1940? Barbarossa was in 1941 and the Russians had more men than the Germans, far less trucks and plenty of horses too. The Germans had 600k motor vehicles for Barbarossa and the Soviets less than half that. The Germans also had 750k(ish) horses. So, when the advance is dictated by the pace of your leg Infantry, what's the difference if its a horse or truck dragging their artillery and ammunition? When you have limited oil for vehicles, horses make a great deal of sense...
1
@Crashed131963 Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria. If the Soviets are knocked off, the Western Allies cannot achieve an unconditional victory, only a negotiated peace. Without the Soviets, the Axis can control all of continental Europe, Western Russia and move forces by rail to the Middle East. Rommel in North Africa and Guderian in Persia?
1
@Crashed131963 Fighting a massive war on the Eastern Front dwarfs the costs of occupation and the Wehrmacht did that for 3 years after Barbarossa failed. If it succeeded, the riches of Western Russia would more than pay for any occupation and further campaign into Persia. The man power issue is a non-issue with willing local Nazis and nationalists in every country as happened historically (Vichy, Quislings, Cossacks, Baltics states, etc.). Plus you have Axis allies also occupying as happened historically (Romanians in the Soviet Union, Bulgarians in Greece, Italians in Greece, Balkans, North Africa).
1