So, what would it take for Hitler to get a political victory?

[rchora]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

It is a vast game, so much was covered. There are a few drawbacks...Most of the people that buy this game are very smart people...Once agian, post in suggestions and the team will weigh and balance your thoughts...

I have no doubt about that PyleDriver, they certainly seem so...Even in the ambiguity of their comments... Full of witt and smart, careful, intent. I like the WiTE players I have seen.

[PyleDriver]

If we will start looking at us as a very small family, and lets get along. We have a vision, lets keep focused on it...

[rchora]

I didn't understand What you mean.

I meant that I find that the comments I have seen here are indeed made, the vast majority at least, by very smart people.

I have a little spare time today, and I have been reading through the threads and posts and well it is amazing the quality of some comments...The way people from different countries find to explain complex opinions even with limited english skills, clearly shows some well above average people play this game.

Even when they disagree, or post a joke its usually with an intelligent remark. This forum is special, unusual, for a newcomer like me its easy to tell the difference from other forums and game reviewing sites and forums.

Pyledriver, I was only voicing my opinion, and what I was thinking at the moment after spending more than a hour reading some very good opinions and suggestions.

I didn't meant to offend you, in anyway. Did I sound offensive? Or ambiguous, sarcastic somehow? It wasn't my intention. When I spoke of "ambiguous" comments, I was talking about how clever and polite some comments are in even when forum members express their disagreement. I was off topic, I agree. But, I hope its not a big deal. I feel its important for us to feel comfortable posting and sometimes that means a more light toned comment... More people interested and playing is obviously better for all of us.

Again, If I was offensive you have my apologies.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

I actually tend to go the other way, and argue that I think Germany could have "won", to the extent that they could have achieved enough success to force the USSR into a negotiated peace.

Probably would have just led to another way anyway though.

But I don't think people realize just how close the USSR was to simply running out of men in WW2. There is this idea that the Soviet Union had some magical inexhaustible pool of men to draw on, hence they could never really lose. This is simply not true. The historical result saw the USSR seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel to full out their rifle divisions by the end of the war, and it was only because the Axis powers were in even worse shape that the USSR was able to prevail. That metric, of forcing your opponent into a downward spiral faster than your own downward spiral of irreplaceable resources was a pretty near run thing.

I think most people do not realize exactly how close the Soviets came to collapse. Stalin was extremely concerned about surviving at all. To the point that he told the U.S. ambassador to relay to Roosevelt that he would like U.S. troops to intervene under U.S. command. For him to do that the situation had to be truely desparate. But of course Hitler was a nut. He was probably Germany's worst enemy.

The Gulags and prisons were emptied, women and older men not combat worthy were made to take over jobs of combat worthy men. This was in 1941. I don't think there were many Rifle Divisions that reached full compliment all during the war. What saved them was the offensive in late 1942/1943. They recovered hundreds of thousands of people to put into the ranks. 80,000 from the vicinity of the Black Sea alone.

[fbs]

So the consensus is that if the Germans had increased their military victories (as compared to historical), there would be a way to force or negotiate a settlement with the USSR?

When I posted my original question, I was thinking of a comparison with Japan in China, or Napoleon in Russia. The Germans (like the Japanese and the French) didn't have enough manpower for full military occupation. Once the industries were in the Urals, and the mineral resources were in the Urals, and the UK/US were sending help, the Soviets might have been in a position to keep the war going, whatever peace conditions the Germans offered.

Now, I don't know about fuel. Hard to keep war going without fuel, so if the Caucasus was lost, then I have no clue if the Soviets would be in a sustainable position or not.

[Panama]

Once the Japanese blundered by attacking the U.S. the war was over. I can't remember who, but a high ranking Soviet exclaimed, "We have won the war." after Japan attacked.

Even without Hitler declaring war on the U.S. the Yanks would send lendlease to Stalin. Some interesting whatifs are available. What if Germany had successfully invaded England. What if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor for another year. What if Hitler had granted the Ukranians some autonomy. What if I were rich and good looking.

[paullus99]

We absolutely would have dropped the Atomic Bomb on Germany - they were always the greater threat & it wasn't until after the war that we realized how far they were away from getting their own (for most of the war, the US & Britain were convinced the Germans were ahead of them in atomic research).

The B-36 was in development to bomb Germany from Iceland or Greenland, if necessary & would have made a perfect platform to deliver the Bomb to Berlin, Nuremberg, etc.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: fbs

So the consensus is that if the Germans had increased their military victories (as compared to historical), there would be a way to force or negotiate a settlement with the USSR?

When I posted my original question, I was thinking of a comparison with Japan in China, or Napoleon in Russia. The Germans (like the Japanese and the French) didn't have enough manpower for full military occupation. Once the industries were in the Urals, and the mineral resources were in the Urals, and the UK/US were sending help, the Soviets might have been in a position to keep the war going, whatever peace conditions the Germans offered.

Now, I don't know about fuel. Hard to keep war going without fuel, so if the Caucasus was lost, then I have no clue if the Soviets would be in a sustainable position or not.

Yeah, I don't think Germany could have "won" in the manner of a decisive military imposed victory over the USSR. I do think they could have potentially put the USSR into a position where the USSR could not effectively force the issue themselves.

However, the way to do so would have been for Germany to take the strategic defensive, much like Japan did against the US. You crush the Red Army, grab a bunch of resources, then hunker down and use your mobile forces to smash any offensives. basically Mansteins backhand blow on the strategic scale.

Of course, I don't know that Hitler *could have* done that - I don't think his mindset, his personal doctrine so to speak, would allow him to basically sit back and say "Bring it...".

[PyleDriver]

Paullus, and just where do we get the bombs, we only had 3. I think the threat of dropping them after the two on Japan would have brought them to the table...Oh and Pirx I never get offended, don't sweat it...

[pad152]

As long as Stalin had men to throw at the Germans, he would never had made peace with Hitler, he knew Germany could not win a war of attrition. The only thing that might have changed that would have been, if Japan attacked Russia in the east and had some success but, every border clash between Japan and Russia, the Japanese lost, plus Japan was way way over committed elsewhere.

[fbs]

Anyone has any insight on Stalin's mindset on 1941 compared to 1917?

In 1917 he and Lenin surrendered to the Germans in order to win a civil war against the Whites, even if that cost the Ukraine. In 1941 there were no whites to fight, but perhaps with the proper incentive some might have risen against the Soviets.

I wouldn't say that's impossible for Stalin to surrender, as he did that once; but what might have caused him to surrender, that perhaps can be better answered by someone that knows the dynamics of the Politburo during WW2. I suspect that human losses and territory lost are something they didn't care too much; I imagine they might be more sensitive to "counter-revolution".

By the way, the 1937/38 Purges probably removed all military and civilian leadership that had initiative enough to start or support a popular revolt. I read somewhere that the post-Purges leadership, either the military, NKVD and political, was very docile to Stalin after the purges. If so, Stalin probably guaranteed his internal order with the Purges (at a cost of having completely inept leaders), and the chances of anyone other than Stalin making a deal with the Germans were probably quite low.

[paullus99]

Possibly to save "Communism in one country." It would really depend on the state of the Red Army - if there was still a viable force in the field, Stalin probably would have kept fighting, since a lot of the Ural industry was well outside the range of anything the Germans had to bomb it.

And as far as the A-Bombs go, if they had been ready in time (or if Germany was still holding out) we most certainly would have dropped them on Berlin first (or perhaps Dresden). The fact that we used them on Japan is based on the fact they were the only surviving Axis power when the bombs were actually ready. It was quite possible, if push came to shove, that the bombs could have been ready sooner (the Manhattan project scientists were delayed by some dead-end ideas that didn't pan out).

[fogger]

I seem to recall from my readings that the Russians approached Hitler twice during the war for a peace agreement. The first was in 1941 which hitler rejected out right because the Russians did not offer enough and the second time was in 1943. The second time the Russians wanted Hitler to withdraw to the old boarders. He rejected this because all the losses would have been for nothing as well he could not trust the Russians.

[Panama]

The only way Stalin would have surrendered or considered peace is if he was shot dead. After Moscow in winter 41/42 he felt confident they could win. After winter 42/43 he knew they could win. At that point it was a question of how much of Central Europe they could conquer before the other Allied forces. After summer 43 he no longer pressed the UK and US for an invasion in France. He knew they could win the war without it.

Also, Stalin cared very much about territory lost. Read NKO Order No. 227. Stalin's "Not a step back." order.

[Krafty]

Wanted to chime in here and point out that Stalin, who old history says was "caught off guard" by Hitlers attack, did several interesting things before Barbarossa. First he destroyed all the polish and russian world war one fortifications. Some of which were quite good, and were already pointing the right direction. Ok, no bigger, he didnt think he would be attacked (ever? He didnt order new ones be built). He then improved the infrastructure from east of Warsaw along the Molo-Ribbentrop line, through modern day Belarus, along through Oral, straight to Moscow. He ordered other routes and rail lines torn up. Ok. Strange. But still, if you didnt think you were going to be attacked, that made sense did it? Lastly, a few months before June 22nd...Stalin orded back the NKVD units from the front, and placed them back in white russian territory. The NKVD were his crack units. Why would you do that if you didnt expect an attack. You could reduce the size of your army, by sending the green troops home. I find it more likely, when you consider that Stalin eradicated the "old guard" just years before. He killed anyone who would challenge his military command, then began acting like a military commander and strategist when he was still supposedly just a head of state. I think new logic is that Stalin was well prepared for Hitlers attack and that Hitlers attack was doomed before it began. He was walking into a trap. He broke through the green lines, through the destroyed forts, along the built up roads, further and further from his supply. Then and only then did Stalin counter attack using NKVD units to push green units, or chaff out in front, using up the enemies stores, before finally putting his veteran units with the best equipment into the fight. He's either the luckiest general in the history of mankind, or one of the best. I believe theres a certain degree of disdain for communists in the united states and that it colors the judgement of history. Post-glastnost era information about the soviet war effort in the great patriotic war doesnt paint the same bleak picture that everyone is so used too.

Add to this that germany attacked with 209 divisions I believe, and Stalin defended with only around 190 of his 300? Even though only 40 or so were out east. I think defense in depth was a part of the soviet plan all along. But thats just me. And they were so good at keeping secrets and destroying information we may never know the truth.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: Kraftwerk

Wanted to chime in here and point out that Stalin, who old history says was "caught off guard" by Hitlers attack, did several interesting things before Barbarossa. First he destroyed all the polish and russian world war one fortifications. Some of which were quite good, and were already pointing the right direction. Ok, no bigger, he didnt think he would be attacked (ever? He didnt order new ones be built). He then improved the infrastructure from east of Warsaw along the Molo-Ribbentrop line, through modern day Belarus, along through Oral, straight to Moscow. He ordered other routes and rail lines torn up. Ok. Strange. But still, if you didnt think you were going to be attacked, that made sense did it? Lastly, a few months before June 22nd...Stalin orded back the NKVD units from the front, and placed them back in white russian territory. The NKVD were his crack units. Why would you do that if you didnt expect an attack. You could reduce the size of your army, by sending the green troops home. I find it more likely, when you consider that Stalin eradicated the "old guard" just years before. He killed anyone who would challenge his military command, then began acting like a military commander and strategist when he was still supposedly just a head of state. I think new logic is that Stalin was well prepared for Hitlers attack and that Hitlers attack was doomed before it began. He was walking into a trap. He broke through the green lines, through the destroyed forts, along the built up roads, further and further from his supply. Then and only then did Stalin counter attack using NKVD units to push green units, or chaff out in front, using up the enemies stores, before finally putting his veteran units with the best equipment into the fight. He's either the luckiest general in the history of mankind, or one of the best. I believe theres a certain degree of disdain for communists in the united states and that it colors the judgement of history. Post-glastnost era information about the soviet war effort in the great patriotic war doesnt paint the same bleak picture that everyone is so used too.

Add to this that germany attacked with 209 divisions I believe, and Stalin defended with only around 190 of his 300? Even though only 40 or so were out east. I think defense in depth was a part of the soviet plan all along. But thats just me. And they were so good at keeping secrets and destroying information we may never know the truth.

I don't know. I think i lean more to a stalin was incompetent explanation.
Why would he leave his best tank formations so far forward to be encircled and destroyed? He would have been taking huge risks to do all that he did to set a trap. In my view unacceptable risks.

[Skanvak]

Err, I quote from memory but there seem to be some misconceptions developping :

_ Stalin (as some say rightly before and more informed than me) was nearly always ready to sign peace. This is told in a biography red by a friend. Fbs, according to several sources Stalin was totally terrified by the attack (that why Kroutchev lost all esteem for him, when he found him drunk and shaking with fear). So Stalin mindset in 1941 was "give hitler anyting he wants for peace (but that seems to not have been enough).

_ Stalin wasn't expected an attack, he was preparing one. According to the soviet echelon attack doctrine, it is ordinary to put crack units on the back, and not on the front. Beside, the NKVD unit can be consider the most loyal to Stalin, so he would want to spare them in an offensive.

That goes back to the subject. Clauswitcz explain rightly that military victory does not exist (otherwise French would have won in Russia (according to him in Das Krieg), the french army was never defeated during the campaign), victory is only political. The ordinary political goal in a war is to impose your will to your opponnent so that he accept whatever is the political reason for the war. The problem with Hitler's russian campaign is that there are no clear politcal objective. His political goal was the annihilation of Russia, which prevent any negociation. Then it prevent any victory in the ordinary meaning. If Hitler's goal where the same as Napoleon, he would have win in 1941!

To have succeeded in its goal, Hitler needed 3 things : a russian political crumbled (might have happened though the regime was more stable than the german expected), exhaust russian manpower (possible but too costly to the gernman manpower, and far more than the german expected), and have enough troops to garrison the country (actually the less likely point of all as the german were not willing to garrison enough).

[barkman44]

The only treaty that hitler did'nt break during the war was the pact of steel with italy and japan.When japan declared war on the US hitler followed suit much to his regret.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
That goes back to the subject. Clauswitcz explain rightly that military victory does not exist

Well, not exactly.

As you noted Clausewitz wrote... "War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will."

He also wrote... "The destruction of the enemy's military force, is the leading principle of War."

We therefore compel our enemy to do our will (the political object) by destroying his means to resist (his military force) and his will to resist. Once our opponent does not have sufficient means and will, the object will be released.

Clausewitz, of course, was heavily influenced by the Napoleonic Wars. In this era we see that, in many cases, "the will" of a nation resided in the capital of its country. Once the capital was captured the war was resolved. Thus, when Napoleon stormed into Russia, his expectation almost certainly was that capturing Moscow would end the war. In true fact, in Continental Europe, we see that the capture of the capital was almost always prefaced first by the destruction of the country's military force. Thus, the country lacked both the means and the will to resist. Because Napoleon failed to destroy the Russian army, the capture of Moscow was insignificant.

BTW, we see this play out in our own games, in fact. As soon as one player believes he does not have the means to obtain his objective, he will normally "quit."

And my favorite quote from Clausewitz...

"Let us not hear of Generals who conquer without bloodshed. If a bloody slaughter is a horrible sight, then that is a ground for paying more respect to War, but not for making the sword we wear blunter and blunter by degrees from feelings of humanity, until someone steps in with one that is sharp and lops off the arm from our body."

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Kraftwerk

Wanted to chime in here and point out that Stalin, who old history says was "caught off guard" by Hitlers attack, did several interesting things before Barbarossa. First he destroyed all the polish and russian world war one fortifications. Some of which were quite good, and were already pointing the right direction. Ok, no bigger, he didnt think he would be attacked (ever? He didnt order new ones be built). He then improved the infrastructure from east of Warsaw along the Molo-Ribbentrop line, through modern day Belarus, along through Oral, straight to Moscow. He ordered other routes and rail lines torn up. Ok. Strange. But still, if you didnt think you were going to be attacked, that made sense did it? Lastly, a few months before June 22nd...Stalin orded back the NKVD units from the front, and placed them back in white russian territory. The NKVD were his crack units. Why would you do that if you didnt expect an attack. You could reduce the size of your army, by sending the green troops home. I find it more likely, when you consider that Stalin eradicated the "old guard" just years before. He killed anyone who would challenge his military command, then began acting like a military commander and strategist when he was still supposedly just a head of state. I think new logic is that Stalin was well prepared for Hitlers attack and that Hitlers attack was doomed before it began. He was walking into a trap. He broke through the green lines, through the destroyed forts, along the built up roads, further and further from his supply. Then and only then did Stalin counter attack using NKVD units to push green units, or chaff out in front, using up the enemies stores, before finally putting his veteran units with the best equipment into the fight. He's either the luckiest general in the history of mankind, or one of the best. I believe theres a certain degree of disdain for communists in the united states and that it colors the judgement of history. Post-glastnost era information about the soviet war effort in the great patriotic war doesnt paint the same bleak picture that everyone is so used too.

Add to this that germany attacked with 209 divisions I believe, and Stalin defended with only around 190 of his 300? Even though only 40 or so were out east. I think defense in depth was a part of the soviet plan all along. But thats just me. And they were so good at keeping secrets and destroying information we may never know the truth.

To get a true perspective of Soviet preperations for war you have to go to Mr. Peabody's house and use his Wayback Machine to travel to 1927 and the time of the 'War Scare'. This is when the Soviets began preparing for war. At first thinking it would be France and England plus possibly Poland and later thinking it would be Germany. War was definately NOT a surprise. You don't advance a nation's industry by 50 years in a ten year span without a compelling reason. The Soviets spent more time and money in preparation than any other nation.