Who started both World Wars?

[ddt]

I have no doubt that long term, Stalin was probably planning to attack Nazi Germany. But there is no evidence that an attack was anywhere near imminent in June 1941. And as much as I hate Stalin, I have to admit that his thinking that an attack by Nazi Germany was inevitable somewhere along the line was right. The screwup he made was in timing,he miscalculated how long he could buy off Germany with raw materials,hopefully until Russia was fully rearmed.

Oh yes, it's clear that Stalin knew war with Germany was inevitable. But he didn't expect it before 1942. Is there any evidence either way if Stalin considered a pre-emptive attack? The selling of raw materials is one of those ironies of history where sworn enemies actually help each other with trading needed commodities. The deliveries continued right up until 22 June...

If Hitler had behaved like a rational person, Stalin would have been right. He was way premature in attacking the Soviets without sufficient preparations for a winter campaign.

Not only did the soldiers have no winter outfit, the tanks weren't even designed for operating in the Russian winter.

I've heard a couple of reasons for why Hitler attacked when he did. The first is that he thought the British would crumble in despair if they didn't have the hope of rescue from the Soviets. Another, probably more accurate reason was that Hitler was starting to show the symptoms of Parkinson's disease and feared he would die before being able to complete his great conquests.

And what about simply: the Germans were drunken with success. They had conquered most of Western Europe, plus Yugoslavia and Greece, why would the USSR be a problem, after its abysmal showing in the Finnish Winter War?

And especially Hitler would overestimate. He hadn't been more than a lowly NCO, a messenger between the trenches, and had never studied the big picture. By the time of Barbarossa, his generals didn't dare to say no to the Gröfaz, the "greatest general of all times".

 

[MG1962]

Look at a topographic map of Russia. The line of the Ural would have been bristling with defenses by the time the Heer got there, and the supply lines back to Germany would have stretched out over that steppe like ducks in a shooting gallery. Russia couldn't be defeated in my opinion, they could only give up.

Which is why Hitler never seemed to have more than a vague notion what to do once he got to the Urals - He had no concrete plan for ending the war, or allowing the Russians to talk peace.....Pretty much business as usual for him really.

Really the only thing that kept Hitler in the game was it took the Russians so long to learn the advantages of their equipment and develope their own battle doctrines for fighting the Germans

 

[ddt]

And that adds another element to the question. When would Russia be officially beaten. Obviously destroying Moscow means nothing, that'd happened before and the Russians did care. Rebuilt the place as if nothing happened

When you get to the Urals, only got another 10,000 miles to the Pacific coast lol

LOL yes. One nitpick though: when Napoleon went to Moscow, it actually was not the Russian capital, but St. Petersburg was.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You have to look at the enormous losses, by the Russians, and the number of "Stand and die" orders . I don't think the Russians were withdrawing by choice. Simply no way they would have given up as much territory ..and valuable territory..as they did voluntarily. Yes, the distance turned out to be a killer for the Germans, but I don't think it was a deliberate strategy. Frankly, the "it was all a trap" advocates don't know their history.

Given Stalin's reaction to the crisis (disappearing for several days and withdrawing from his duties), it's clear that this was a disaster of Biblical proportions. When party leaders came to try to talk him out of his funk, he was convinced they were going to demand his resignation. Once he realized he wasn't going to be held accountable for the monumental collapse of Soviet defenses, he was quickly back to his old self.

It seems clear to me that none of this was planned.

 

[MG1962]

LOL yes. One nitpick though: when Napoleon went to Moscow, it actually was not the Russian capital, but St. Petersburg was.

But to be fair it was the emotional center of Russia

 

[ddt]

No, the real reason the Germans lost was hubris. They completely underestimated the Russians' abilities and overestimated their own.
<snip>
The force-to-space ratio was completely inadequate. Of the German's better tanks, the Panzer III and IVs, there were just 1,400 available for a front of some 2,000 miles. Barbarossa began with some 150 German divisions, only 15 more than had been used in the attacks westward in May of 1940. The number of tanks was only 30% greater. But the battlefield area was twenty times larger. This is not a recipe for success.

The initial Russian line-up had about the same number of divisions. But they managed to bring more to the battlefield. Isn't there a quote from a German general, somewhere in the fall of 1941, like: we defeated 150 divisions, and there are still 150 divisions facing us.

 

[MG1962]

The initial Russian line-up had about the same number of divisions. But they managed to bring more to the battlefield. Isn't there a quote from a German general, somewhere in the fall of 1941, like: we defeated 150 divisions, and there are still 150 divisions facing us.

In "Rise and fall of the third Reich" They go into this at a bit of length. The Germans estimated something like 110 divisions facing them. Six months later the Germans had destroy something like 150 divisions with 205 more facing them. Shriever quotes extensively from RKW planning and operation briefings for these numbers

The real strength is hard to figure. There is still discussion of the OOB at Stalingrad. Whole divisons of men where there, and no one can work out what their actual army formation was

 

[ddt]

Now here is a great thing to study if you want to do some honest research about WW2 - Did the Germans drive the Russians back or did the Russians allow themselves to be pushed back so that the Germans would be in the worst possible position come winter.

One of the great arguments on the net, and to my knowledge one that no one has ever delivered a definitive answer too

Considering the big Kesselschlachte - the cauldron battles, where big Russian army groups were surrounded and annihiliated - in 1941, I think the answer is definitely the first. The Russians didn't retreat on purpose. Only, they could replenish the losses in material and in men, and set up a next line.

 

[ddt]

But to be fair it was the emotional center of Russia

Touché, I agree. Petersburg was still very much the "eye on the west".

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Sorry, just had to throw that in.

 

[dafydd]

"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Sorry, just had to throw that in.

Very good.

 

[Corsair 115]

Not only did the soldiers have no winter outfit, the tanks weren't even designed for operating in the Russian winter.

Even worse was the logistical equipment which couldn't handle the cold. German railway locomotives were not up to the task. The way most supplies were moved from the railheads to the front was by horse-drawn carts—and the German draft horses suffered severely in the cold. Moreover, astoundingly, there was a shortage of winter horsehoes for the German draft horses, the lack of which reduced their pulling ability. The way one German division dealt with these issues was to commandeer the small but tough draft horses and light carts used by the local Russian farmers.

Logistics wins wars. You can have the greatest weapons in the world, but without ammunition and fuel those weapons are useless.

And what about simply: the Germans were drunken with success.

The Japanese called it 'victory disease.'

 

[dafydd]

Even worse was the logistical equipment which couldn't handle the cold. German railway locomotives were not up to the task. The way most supplies were moved from the railheads to the front was by horse-drawn carts—and the German draft horses suffered severely in the cold. Moreover, astoundingly, there was a shortage of winter horsehoes for the German draft horses, the lack of which reduced their pulling ability. The way one German division dealt with these issues was to commandeer the small but tough draft horses and light carts used by the local Russian farmers.

Logistics wins wars. You can have the greatest weapons in the world, but without ammunition and fuel those weapons are useless.





The Japanese called it 'victory disease.'

If someone competent had been in charge of the Luftwaffe instead of a fat morphine addict,would the supplies have got through?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Not only did the soldiers have no winter outfit, the tanks weren't even designed for operating in the Russian winter.

I think you are smart enough to deduce why these tanks were not designed for Russian winter. You can accuse the Germans of a lot of things, but not of stupidity.

The only thing that you have to do is jump over decades of brainwashing.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think you are smart enough to deduce why these tanks were not designed for Russian winter.

Yeah, Hitler's hubris dictated a short war in Russia. He didn't even provide winter clothing for the troops. Just plain arrogant and stupid.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Which is why Hitler never seemed to have more than a vague notion what to do once he got to the Urals - He had no concrete plan for ending the war, or allowing the Russians to talk peace.....Pretty much business as usual for him really.

Really the only thing that kept Hitler in the game was it took the Russians so long to learn the advantages of their equipment and develope their own battle doctrines for fighting the Germans

Hitler was not interested in the Urals. He was interested in 'regime change', in defeating 'Jewish Bolshevism', just like you guys removed Saddam. Capturing Leningrad and Moscow would have been enough to defeat communism and install a puppet regime.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yeah, Hitler's hubris dictated a short war in Russia. He didn't even provide winter clothing for the troops. Just plain arrogant and stupid.

Unless of course Suvorov is right and Stalin was indeed planning an attack and Hitler was forced to attack with the means he had. In this version he had no 'Russia worthy' tanks because he never planned to invade Russia. Makes sense, right?

Amazon
Revised version of 'Icebreaker' from end 2008.

 

[dafydd]

Yeah, Hitler's hubris dictated a short war in Russia. He didn't even provide winter clothing for the troops. Just plain arrogant and stupid.

He should have put a Jew in charge of the campaign.I cite the Six-Day war.I remember some American politician in the Sixties making a speech,and asking ''How can we end the Vietnam War?'',and some some wag in the audience shouted ''Send over six Israeli Generals!''

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Unless of course Suvorov is right and Stalin was indeed planning an attack and Hitler was forced to attack with the means he had. In this version he had no 'Russia worthy' tanks because he never planned to invade Russia. Makes sense, right?

Amazon
Revised version of 'Icebreaker' from end 2008.

You have an abysmal grasp of logistics. How long for a tank from drawing board to deployment?

AND, the Panzers could have been running if they had done ONE THING, something that didn't require redesign. The Germans just didn't know about it.

 

[9/11-investigator]

You have an abysmal grasp of logistics. How long for a tank from drawing board to deployment?

AND, the Panzers could have been running if they had done ONE THING, something that didn't require redesign. The Germans just didn't know about it.

There were 8 years between 1933 and 1941. That should have been more than enough time to design a proper tank if the invasion of Russia had been planned all along.