Plus it didn't help that Poles were slaughtering Germans in Poland during the whole March 1939 Danzig crisis.
Upvote
0
"What If?"
- Thread starter timur
- Start date
Not to turn the "What If" into a "What Of" thread, but I can't say that I'm familiar with any massacres of Germans in Poland during the March of '39 - the only results that come up on Google pertain to German propaganda falsehoods. Would you mind providing me with a link that elaborates on the issue?
Upvote
0
![[TW]Wilsonam](/data/avatars/s/0/10.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
As far as I have read, there were no plans to invade in 1941. A number of reasons it was most unlikely:
1. While a large percentage of the Soviet forces were positioned forward, they had very littlle transport and the logistics base was an average of around 250 Km behind the front. This proved pretty catastrophic when the Germans invaded. If the Soviets had attacked first, they'd have got about 5Km, if they were lucky.
2. Stalin had discussed the fact that the Red Army wouldn't be ready for war until 1943 at best.
3. The war games held in Kiev earlier in the year had proved that the Red Army was in no shape to defend well, elt alone attack (with Zhukov playing the Germans, amusingly).
4. The Soviet forces weren't mobilized - they weren't even permitted to move troops to combat readiness, although some units did anyway. The Soviets' own estimates (Krivosheev et al) put the losses in June 1941 of "troops caught while mobilizing/reporting for duty" as 500,000.
5. A significant portion of the Soviet forces were deployed to the East, as they were concerned about combat with the Japanese. It wasn't until the end of 1941, when the Japanese demonstrably moved south and east against the west's interests in the Pacific/Asia, that Stalin was prepared to release forces from the east to help defend Moscow.
So, just because plans may have existed doesn't mean the Soviets were actually intending to use them any time soon. The general staff of any army usually has plans for all sorts of eventualities pre-prepared. Plans for offense and defense had been updated after the takeover of the Baltic States, after the land-grab off Romania, after Poland and after the Winter War with Finland. They HAD to be updated in each case, as the conditions had changed. After moving the borders a couple hundred kilometers into Poland any plans for defense AND offense were instantly completely obsolete and needed to be replaced.
On top of that, Tukhachevsky's legacy wasn't completely stamped out. The view there was that the best form of defense was to go straight on the offense.
Yes, there were plans. The charming Gen Douglas Macarthur had his staff cut plans for going to war with the British and French in SE Asia in 1945, because he didn't approve of our "Imperialism/Colonialism" - he was (fortunately) told not to be an *** and put them away! Just because a plan exists doesn't mean you intend to use it - or want to!
Upvote
0
Got to admit I haven't read up as much as I'd like on this particular area, but what are your thoughts re: Icebreaker? I've got Suvorov's book, but haven't read it yet.
From what I've read outside of Suvorov, however, there's plenty of indication that the Soviets had just shy of 200 divisions massed already to their west by June of 1941, and Stalin was extremely pissed that the French had acted so ... well, French. Supposedly Kruschev's memoirs claimed that Stalin had hoped that Germany would get bogged down in France with British / French resistance, keeping Hitler's attention occupied so that he could start snapping up miscellaneous bits and pieces in the east - particularly Romania and its oil.
Upvote
0
Don't bother with "Icebreaker" - largely discredited. For much the same reason that you shouldn't believe Nikita Kruschev - he was an evil lying little toad, trying to blame the ills of the (Soviet) world on Stalin and deflect blame from himself. Mind you, so was Stalin
Stalin most likely was pissed at the rapid end to the war in the west for the reasons you've given, not because he wanted to invade Germany. One of his hopes was that the war in western Europe would go on for a long time, keep everyone busy and let him work on the Red Army for the next couple of years.
200 divisions at the front - the "БОЕВОЙ СОСТАВ" lists:
198 Rifle Divisions
13 Cavalry Divisions
21 Rifle/Other Brigades
57 Fortified Zones
61 Tank Divisions
31 Mech Divisions
That is (very roughly) 340 Division-equivalents. Can't remember what chunk of those were deployed forward, but it was a very large number.
Did Stalin intend to start a war with Germany in 1941? I very much doubt it... he'd seen the rather poor performance of his forces in Poland, followed by the awful performance in Finland. Stalin didn't take risks with his power base - adn even he must have realised that attacking a fully-prepared Germany would be a pretty stupid idea. He was much happier to let the western Europeans exhaust themselves and Germany - then "ride to the rescue".
Upvote
0
Don't bother with "Icebreaker" - largely discredited. For much the same reason that you shouldn't believe Nikita Kruschev - he was an evil lying little toad, trying to blame the ills of the (Soviet) world on Stalin and deflect blame from himself. Mind you, so was Stalin
Well Jesus, doesn't every politician do that?
I'll probably read Suvorov's book(s) anyway, but with a critical eye. Do you have any particular / specific sources for refuting them? Would be a useful set of parallel reading material ...
Okay, okay. Perhaps the direct and immediate invasion of Germany proper wouldn't have happened right in the instant future, but we're not necessarily limited to the immediate. Stalin absolutely did live by Gen. Mattis' maxim. If you think that Stalin would have been content with spreading 'True Communism' to only Poland and Romania ...
From what I recall, it was 175-200 divisions, or so, by June 1941, up 50-75% from January 1941.
I think this is it, right here. Probably 1943 would have been the magic year. Early 1943. Workups and training in Poland / Yugoslavia / Romania / Hungary / Czechoslovakia in 1941-42, and then bring True Communism all the way to the Atlantic by 1944.
That's my projection, at least.
Upvote
0
That is a slightly sweeping assessment
So - assume the Saxon fyrd hadn't got carried away, broken ranks and charged down Senlac Hill, getting many of themselves cut down in the process. The Saxon shield wall holds all day and the Normans (I'm including their allies under that heading, as only about 50% or less were actually Normans) are stuck. Further Saxon forces come up, rather than buggering off back to their homes, further outnumbering the Normans.
William is now faced with defeat - potentially a truly disastrous one. The sane thing to do would be to pull back, re-embark his troops and head for home, cursing and muttering.
But the effects?
Firstly, my ancestor who came ashore with him would have gone home. Oh crap - I'd probably be French.
On a wider scale... Harold Godwinson would have absolutely consolidated his position as King, having defeated both a Norse AND a Norman invasion. Would be interesting to think where that would have led to.
The Normans built castles all over the place, including the Welsh/Scottish borders to consolidate their power, then went stomping through Wales. Led to English expansionism and the creation of "Great Britain", then the "United Kingdom". You could argue that this wouldn't have happened after a failed Norman invasion. Also, there wouldn't have been English claims on large tracts of France, so a lot of the Anglo-French wars three might not have happened.
This implies a much more "peaceful" England, potentially much more insular than we actually were. We'd have probably wound up much more like the Dutch - great traders and seafarers, but far less inclined to helping ourselves to other people's countries!
Now, I hate to throw this in while others are still mid-speculation, but for those more in tune of World History and sweeping effects than the politics of Soviet Russia I'm throwing in a side question:
What do you think the effects of an insular, divided British Isles and Normans remaining French would have on history after Hastings? Now I know this is thinner ice than others, but its certainly interesting imagining how different the world would be.
Upvote
0
Interesting...
What if we combined a better-led army with this new AK37? Provided that this new leadership is actually competent, of course.
Upvote
0
Wilson: have you read this book:
Bryan I. Fugate and Lev Dvoretsky, Thunder on the Dnepr : Zhukov-Stalin and the defeat of Hitler's Blitzkrieg
http://www.amazon.com/Thunder-Dnepr-Zhokov-Timoshenko-Barbarossa/dp/0891415297
I just got it today. I know it gives a different take than what we've seen in most other places, but then again there's valid points in the premise.
Bryan I. Fugate and Lev Dvoretsky, Thunder on the Dnepr : Zhukov-Stalin and the defeat of Hitler's Blitzkrieg
http://www.amazon.com/Thunder-Dnepr-Zhokov-Timoshenko-Barbarossa/dp/0891415297
I just got it today. I know it gives a different take than what we've seen in most other places, but then again there's valid points in the premise.
Upvote
0
There's a question I've been mulling over for a while, that is what is the German's were just one or two extra years ahead of the allies in terms of their technological development and implementation? ie they were able to obtain nuclear weapons and introduce their next-gen aircraft on a truly large scale as well as other projects like the P.1000(in my sig) and P.1500(railgun on tracks) and also their newer U-boat designs. Along with numerous other projects; Die Glocke anyone?
This is ofcourse they had the time and resources for such things, but hey, this is a "what if?" thread.
ie they were able to obtain nuclear weapons and introduce their next-gen aircraft on a truly large scale as well as other projects like the P.1000(in my sig) and P.1500(railgun on tracks) and also their newer U-boat designs. Along with numerous other projects; Die Glocke anyone? This is ofcourse they had the time and resources for such things, but hey, this is a "what if?" thread.
Upvote
0
Yes the Romans were different though. They were smart. Most of the Roman army (after the Marius reforms) I believe was made up of non-Romans who sought Roman citizenship (which being a legionnaire gave you... as well as a plot of land at the end of your service). Certainly the auxiliaries were usually non Romans.
Living conditions also genuinely improved (most of the time) in the areas Rome conquered. Not immediately certainly, but over time.
Persians accomplished similar things... except their main method was IIRC to split up a people group all over their empire so they became much more easily integrated into Persian culture and would be unlikely to start any sort of resistance movement.
That's one advantage of not having an ideology of "WE ARE SUPERIOR TO EVERYTHING AND YOU ARE ALL SUBHUMANS/CAPITALIST SWINE THAT SHOULD DIE"... you recognize they're people too with the same needs, you fulfill their needs, you win them over. Or you just annihilate them with your vastly superior military technology and tactics. Since most of the areas Rome invaded were not united at all but made up of tiny little city states or just freaking villages which were often at war with each other it wasn't too hard to do.
(btw I'm not saying the Roman empire was some utopia or something, Rome was definitely rotten to the core)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
QFT
History has shown that you can defeat an insurgency if you remove it's support base within the local population, however it is extremely difficult. I will concede though that I do not believe it is always possible to achieve, especially if you are facing an insurgency that is fighting out of a deep sense of nationalism and defence of their homes like the Soviet partisans were.
The type of strategy Ostmann is talking about is an example of exactly how not to do it. The more you terrorise a civillian population the more civillians you drive towards joining the insurgency.
I would argue that the Germans missed a golden opportunity when they were in control of Soviet client states, like the Ukraine etc. Traditionally these states have been dominated by Russia and a lot of the population had a fierce desire to be independent. The Germans could have used this to their advantage, but instead they suppresed the population just as brutally as Russia had in the past.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
There's a question I've been mulling over for a while, that is what is the German's were just one or two extra years ahead of the allies in terms of their technological development and implementation?
This is ofcourse they had the time and resources for such things, but hey, this is a "what if?" thread.
If they ever would've attempted to build some of their more bonkers stuff Germany would've probably lost the war faster. But if Germany would be on the tech and army equipment standards of 1943-1944 in 1941-1942 then it would look a bit different.
Upvote
0
Uh, no.Not to mention a working nuclear bomb by ~1945, directed at New York City
There was no way Germany could've even had enough weapons grade nuclear material by 1950 lol.
Upvote
0
Yup, I'm largely with that one. Whether or not the Red Army would have improved anything like enough to do the job is another huge "what if". They improved by 1943 due to the pressures of (near-catastrophic) war. But without those pressures... ? And that then leads on to another "what if": would the western allies have side with Germany/made peace with Germany in order to stop the Bolshevik Horde??
Upvote
0
With the whole insurgency shabang, you are forgetting that the Nazis were fighting a Vernichtungskrieg, they plan was to kill all native Russians (Ukrainians etc.) in the conquered regions and bring in Germans. An insurgency only would have helped the justification of the destruction of the population however it can be argued if something like that could be successful but the Nazis never tried to win hearts and minds (even when they could have).
Also there are uranium deposits in Germany, so nuclear weapons could have been a possibility (if they had the right/Jewish scientists).
Also there are uranium deposits in Germany, so nuclear weapons could have been a possibility (if they had the right/Jewish scientists).
Upvote
0