Attack on the USSR

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One note to this arguement. The Historical results are based on Stalin's having done virtually EVERYTHING wrong. From failing to believe reports that the German's were massing for an attack to putting the great bulk of his forces forward along the border to having shot his officer corps to insisting on counterattacks to....... So if we are going to look at POSSIBILITIES, haw about a more prepared and better commanded Red Army deployed primarily back along the "Stalin Line" with the STAVKA being run by soldiers rather than Stalin's demands. If we are going to postulate one maniacal dictator not making a series of bungling mistakes, why not both?

I never argue that Germany should win nor that Japan should win in Russia. I simply accept that some possibility existed. Just because Russia didn't collapse doesn't means that it couldn't have. I would also accept some possibility that Russia might do much better then historical. Is it possible for the initial German attack to be botched and perhaps Russia holds at Smolesk?

In fact I have consistantly argued that it should be much much more difficult for Japan to conquer Russia in the game.

But we have an excellent example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. We fail to achieve agreement on making Russia difficult to conquer, due to disagreement by those who believe it should be impossible. So instead the invasion of Russia remains a snap for Japan.

[Nikademus]

Just to note too....the "Stalin Line" was never finished and was largely incomplete.

However a valid 'what if' scenario that would be quite interesting would be "what if" the Russians had not moved foward the bulk of their army to their new "border" with Germany after Poland's dismemberment?

There would still be the issues of incompentant leadership due to the purges, poor mechanical state of the RKKA naturally, but it might have helped to temper the losses some.

One must remember the abysmal performance of the Red Army in Finland was not that far into the past. changes were beginning to be made to correct the worst deficincies but there was still much left to be done by summer 41.

[Feinder]

Time has almost always been the friend of Russia. Too many calamities either all at once or in quick succession however would bring down even the beast of the East. Remember the collapse in WWI.

Do you actually believe that the social, political, and industrial ingredients of Stalin's Soviet Union in 1941, were that similar to the end of Tsarist Russia?

(* shrug *)

To each his own interpretation I suppose.

Obviously your opinion of what was historically possible, is very different than mine. You can quote. I can quote. In the end, it's just words on the internet.

-F-

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Do you actually believe that the social, political, and industrial ingredients of Stalin's Soviet Union in 1941, were that similar to the end of Tsarist Russia?

The question I would ask is:

Has there ever been a nation under equal or greater pressure then Russia was under, that did not collapse. In terms of casualties or hardship to the population I cannot think of an example that comes close.

Germany and Japan's population were under similar pressures for short periods of time and collapsed. WWI Russia and Germany were both under significantly less pressure and both collapsed.

Why is it hard to accept the mere possibity that the Russian army and society might simply break at some point.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Do you actually believe that the social, political, and industrial ingredients of Stalin's Soviet Union in 1941, were that similar to the end of Tsarist Russia?

No. I cited 1917 as an example that if enough calamities strike home, even a giant like Russia can be defeated. Stalin's grip on Russia was admitedly much tighter than was the Czar's in 41, however since the fall of Moscow has been mentioned, and since Stalin did declare that he would not evac Moscow should the Germans come, its not out of the realm of realism to postulate that the Communist regime might have either fallen or at least gotten shaken up enough to try to seek an armistice of some kind.

Obviously your opinion of what was historically possible, is very different than mine. You can quote. I can quote. In the end, it's just words on the internet.
-F-

True. I'm only giving an opinion. People can take it or disregard it as they choose. I do prefer positive and informative discussion over implied dismisal. But thats just my personal preference. [:)]

[Feinder]

FWIW, Tsarist Russia was already on the brink of civil war in 1914. You could probably argue that in contemporary standards, there already was a civil war going on. In WW1, the Soviet people were dragged into an offensive war, that they didn't want to be involved with in the first place. Their politcal leadership own grasp of power was weakening every day. It probably didn't even need to be involved in WW1 for it to collapse (debatable).

In WW2, the Soviet poeple were dragged into WW2 because there were Panzers rolling thru their font yards. They were DEFENDING their homes, and trying keep their wives and daughters from being raped. They were lead by a man who had absolute, unquestioning power. It was HIS police. HIS military. HIS country. His control was well established, and growing.

Do I think Soviet Russia could have capitulated? I suppose SOMEHOW, it could have. But not because Germany was within 20 miles of Moscow. Not because Germany actually captures Moscow (which is what many folks seem to think is the lynch-pin). Marching an army into the Urals or Siberia isn't going to cut it.

Lemme think. What does it take to defeat Russia, in WW2? You'd have to get rid of Stalin for starters. Moscow is far less important the HE actually is. But Stalin still has 10 bodies (living or dead) to throw at the Germans (or Japan), there is no surrender.

-F-

[Feinder]

Well whaddya know. We at least agree that the removal of Stalin is necessary for Soviet capitulation in WW2...

-F-

[Skyros]

The defense of Moscow and the repulse of the German Army stiffened the resolve of the Soviets. What is unknown in all of this is what would have happened to Stalin if Moscow had fallen. I have read accounts that the government was in disarray and was evacuating Moscow as the Germans initially approached. Would its fall have embolden other party officials/Generals to put a bullet in Stalin's head? Would this have caused other splits that would have further weakened the USSR? I think that was a possibility, but we will never know for sure.

I like to consider plausible alternatives such as Moscow falling, rather than Nazi scientist invent ray guns to shoot down B17s etc.

[Nikademus]

FWIW, Tsarist Russia was already on the brink of civil war in 1914

Not quite. There was unrest, but no brink of civil war. It took several years of wars and a string of defeats and shortages to tip the balance.

They were DEFENDING their homes, and trying keep their wives and daughters from being raped. They were lead by a man who had absolute, unquestioning power. It was HIS police. HIS military. HIS country. His control was well established, and growing.

Initially, many of these same people, particularily in Ukraine and in the recently aquired baltic provinces welcomed the Germans as liberators. It was only after the Gestapo and SS moved in and started terrorizing, killing and displacing people that attitudes began to harden and the "mother Russia" theme began to show through, played up by this time by Stalin.

Stalin's control was weakened during the intial German advances and he was so rattled at one point that he was quoted as stating that Allied or American troops would be welcome on Soviet soil.

[Skyros]

I understand what Feinder is saying concering an invader, but we have seen other countries capitulate or put up a weak fight. The Chinese were treated very poorly and Chiang would have lost his life if captured, yet he ran that war as if he did not want to win. He had other war lords and the communists to deal with so he fought the war in not to lose mode.

If the leadership could have been changed the Germans had a chance. The best opportunity was the fall/winter of 41 and the fall of Moscow.

[moses]

Armies have often collapsed despite the certain knowledge that defeat means death. Look at perhaps the entire history of ancient battles. At a certain level of casualties and destruction units just collapse and its every man for himself.

Stalin was not a superman and could have done nothing once units started to disolve or once the production system desended into anarchy.

Historically they held it together and won the war. Thats an historical fact. It doesn't mean that things could not have unfolded differently.

[Skyros]

I agree with you completely, Stalin's army kept him in the game (so to speak). Baring more German mistakes his death/removal would have unglued the leadership and command control of Soviet forces. Or maybe another strongman would have risen in his place and we would have guerrila warfare continuing into the 60s aka Fatherland.

ORIGINAL: moses

Armies have often collapsed despite the certain knowledge that defeat means death. Look at perhaps the entire history of ancient battles. At a certain level of casualties and destruction units just collapse and its every man for himself.

Stalin was not a superman and could have done nothing once units started to disolve or once the production system desended into anarchy.

Historically they held it together and won the war. Thats an historical fact. It doesn't mean that things could not have unfolded differently.

[Feinder]

I had a girlfriend, who liked to argue, just to argue.

You get to the point where it's the same-ol-sh_t, over and over. Nothing new is said. After a while, it just ends up as, "Could not! Could too!".

Believe it or not, sometimes "implied dismissal", or her case, dismissal altogether, -IS- the best option.

Either way, it's an interesting read of perspectives, even if I don't agree with them, or you with mine.

Cheers.
-F-

[Skyros]

Agreed

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I had a girlfriend, who liked to argue, just to argue.

You get to the point where it's the same-ol-sh_t, over and over. Nothing new is said. After a while, it just ends up as, "Could not! Could too!".

Believe it or not, sometimes "implied dismissal", or her case, dismissal altogether, -IS- the best option.

Either way, it's an interesting read of perspectives, even if I don't agree with them, or you with mine.

Cheers.
-F-

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Believe it or not, sometimes "implied dismissal", or her case, dismissal altogether, -IS- the best option.

-F-

Just to clarify, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. The point of that comment was that you can disagree with someone and not write in such a way that it sounds like your opinion is a flight of fantasy. We have enough trolls around here for that. Thats all i'm saying.

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Initially, many of these same people, particularily in Ukraine and in the recently aquired baltic provinces welcomed the Germans as liberators.

Anti-Soviet resistance held off in Baltic States until 1949 and in Ukraine until 1956.

Basically Stalin solved the problem by removing local population (whole villages and helmets) to Siberia (many died in the process) so partisans didn't have the base of operations, and settling in Russians.

Even now this is a source of problems for ethnic Russians in Baltic States as they are still considered "occupants" by locals. Not so much in Ukraine because Russians and Ukrainians culturally close, although Russians are disliked in former colonies in general.

[Nikademus]

One of the most facinating trips i ever took was with my high school friend to Lithuania to visit his cousin and her parents. Spent a week there, virtually a mute since only my friend's cousin spoke any English...learned a few words and gawked at all the church restorations going on with almost frantic energy. Also visted the famous Hill of Crosses. The Soviets would tear them down....and the local population would just keep rebuilding it till the Sov's just gave up.

perhaps a fitting analogy to the entire Communist regime. In the end you just can't crush the Human spirit.

[6971grunt]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I had a girlfriend, who liked to argue, just to argue.

You get to the point where it's the same-ol-sh_t, over and over. Nothing new is said. After a while, it just ends up as, "Could not! Could too!".

Believe it or not, sometimes "implied dismissal", or her case, dismissal altogether, -IS- the best option.

Either way, it's an interesting read of perspectives, even if I don't agree with them, or you with mine.

Cheers.
-F-

Maybe a good reason why men shouldn't marry.

[Skyros]

You must have watched the TV Movie on John Paul the II last night.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

One of the most facinating trips i ever took was with my high school friend to Lithuania to visit his cousin and her parents. Spent a week there, virtually a mute since only my friend's cousin spoke any English...learned a few words and gawked at all the church restorations going on with almost frantic energy. Also visted the famous Hill of Crosses. The Soviets would tear them down....and the local population would just keep rebuilding it till the Sov's just gave up.

perhaps a fitting analogy to the entire Communist regime. In the end you just can't crush the Human spirit.

[Cpt.Buckmaster]

[singing]attACK ON THE U.S.S.R.!
Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out!
They leave the West behind.
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout -
That Georgia’s always on my mind.
attACK ON THE USSR![/singing]

/runs from angry mob of forum members [:D]