Return of the Soviet Union

aaaah. the political economy of guns not butter. i love it

 

Yep I know that, of course strategically they were screwed, Russia is too vast for a nation the size of Germany with their resources at that time to control, hence the problems with partisans etc etc...

You are right I admit that, and your knowledge is impressive and I must say very interesting. My terming of 'ok' was that the Germans in winter 1942 were not defeated - yet - defeat might well have been inevitable after the failure of Barbarossa to take Moscow in 1941; however in 1942 the fact is that the Germans held vast areas of Soviet land, whether that be in total control of just a mere presence. I'd say this is ok, I would not say and did not say that they were going to win the war on the Eastern Front, I said it's ok because in the circumstances pushing that far into Russia was not too bad an achievement if we're fair, considering the setbacks in the winter of 1941/42.

Let me just reassert the fact that I do agree with you, but can you see what I meant by saying it is 'ok'? I know it's loose terminology, but for those less well informed it might be easier to say that than go into details about the strategic situation, which I add I know was pretty grim when you look at the bigger picture. I also must state - as you also put it - it was Hitler's odd decisions of personal vanity that also weakened the German position. I'd like to think if I were in Hitler's position I might have been able to make a better fist of it!

 

Good, I'm going to Bracknell.

Which is very much like Kursk looked in 1943.

 

is there a connection between the german concept of total war and the dutch concept of total football?

 

One could try and compare Luton to Stalingrad in 1943. However as for Bracknell I'm unfamiliar with it so I can't comment on its similarities to Kursk (except maybe the submarine - in so far as it might sink?).

 

"can you see what I meant by saying it is 'ok'?"

Well, I suppose it depends on how you define the term.

I would say an analogy would be to say Watford were doing 'okay' after the first leg play-off defeat by Hull. Clearly, they still had the possibility that they might turn things around, but a realistic assessment at the time would be that there was next to no chance of doing so and a cold, hard analysis in the aftermath would indicate without question that the play-off tie was lost before the second leg started and probably some weeks, if not months before that.

If the purpose of an expedition is to achieve victory, then all incidents which occur en-route are only of value if they materially assist or prevent eventual achievement of that ultimate goal. I would emphasise that, in-spite of occupying large tracts of Soviet territory, the Germans were moving further away from their ulitmate strategic objective. The Soviet Union and it's forebears had always traded land for time in military campaigns, so although the cost of lost cities and lives was grievous, it was far from fatal. The Germans, by allowing themselves to be distracted from their war-winning objective to pursue Hitler's subsidiary tactical goals, were condemning themselves to defeat and were, therefore, doing far from 'okay'.

 

It was a rocky start Lizard, but in the end a great contribution.

The defeat of the Nazi's and the Japanese Empire in the second world war is inevitable at almost every turn. The more you look into it, the more you think 'these guys were crazy/stupid/foolish/deluded to even THINK they could win. They had some splashy successes and well trained dedicated armies, but nearly no long term advantages over their enemies. A few good or bad tactical decisions in the end made no difference. The Soviets were headed west, the Americans were going to land in force at Normandy and assault the main islands of Japan no matter what happened.

 

when did the yanks drop that big bomb thingy on Japan that explodes into a mushroom shape cloud like scene and inflicts very bad things on persons who get in its way and makes the iar go manky for several decades?

Was it a war winning decision?

 

I'm going to need an alternative to 'drivel' if this carries on much longer.

To confuse the Japanese with the Germans is to fatally undermine the entire discussion.

The Germans would have won the war in autumn 1941, had they continued on to Moscow, which was almost completely undefended, rather than diverting their forces on one of Hitler's diversionary jaunts into the Ukraine and towards Lenigrad, both subsidiary targets. Capturing Moscow would have deprived the Soviet Union of around 80% of it's economic and manufacturing base, as well as the spiritual heart of the communist system. It could not have survived such a defeat.

Had Germany captured Moscow in 1941 and won the war in Europe, there would have been no grand coalition to ultimately defeat them in 1945. The Americans and British would not have had sufficient strength to launch an invasion of Western Europe against a German opponent not already immasculated by the string of defeats in the East. Britain would have had no alternative but to accept German dominance of continental Europe long before America showed any willingness to shed American blood for future political influence overseas. There would have been no theatre in which to meaningfully continue the fight.

Thus, the suggestion that Germany could not have won is the ultimate fallacy. The Germans could not win once the Americans joined the war against them, simply because they had already lost the war by that point. The advent of American power on the European continent hastened that final defeat but did not condition it.

Even after the arrival of the Americans and the subsequent invasion of Western Europe, the overwhelming majority of German forces were still employed against the Soviets in the vast Eastern theatre. It was always here that the Germans were defeated, not in the West.

The Pacific war is a seperate entity entirely. Japan's reasons for engaging in the war were entirely different to Germany's and their capacity for victory immeasurably less.

 

Now I'm going to bring this up, but I'm going to footy training in a minute so can't get involved! Do you really think the Soviets would have been totally crippled for good had they lost Moscow? I have heard that they did have an industrial base beyond the Ural mountains. Although the German invasion was swift and gave them little chance to relocate industry there, maybe a peace agreement would have been reached and they could have had time to rebuild their industry. I also believe that Hitler did not have any real intention of invading beyond the Ural's as the territory they would have had to administer would have been way too vast for them.

Obviously I'm going to get shot down here but I thought I'd mention it.....

 

No, it's actually a very good question. Well done you.

Whilst it's true that a proportion of Soviet manufacturing capacity was hurriedly evacuated East, the territory captured by the Germans in this reimagining of the outcome of the 1941 battles (resulting in a German capture of Moscow) would have so denuded Soviet industry, the vast majority of which was still in the area around and just to the East and South of Moscow, along with the loss of the largest part of the population would have meant that, even if the Soviet political elite had managed to retain a measure of control in some far flung corner of the Union, it would have been so denuded of industrial, military and manpower as to make the course of the war in Europe irrevocable.

A German capture of the Moscow region would have reduced Soviet industrial capacity by around 50%, allowing for some evacuation. It would also have destroyed the Soviet capacity to raise new armies in the region between Moscow and the Volga, the principal mobilization centre of the Soviet Union at the time. There simply would not have been sufficient men or materials to continue the war effectively, even if the government had survived with it's authority intact. Being generous, the Soviets might have dragged the war into 1942 before final defeat.

It should also be understood that Moscow was the epicentre of Soviet rail, road and telephone links with the rest of the country. The Soviet defence of Leningrad and The Ukraine in 1941 was almost entirely dependent on rail transport. A German capture of the Moscow region would have seized the rail hub and thus controlled all communications to the North, West and South thereof, condemning the remaining areas North and South of the Moscow area to a rapid collapse.

 

Had they indeed? And how long is a generation in Spain? 5yrs? Most sources I can find seem to suggest they used them in the mid-1800s. All of 50 years before our ancestors.

Anyway, I wrote 'invented' in inverted commas for a reason - like any country can actually claim to invent something like that, when it's really just a tactic probably used since time immemorial. Plus we were the first to coin the phrase.

I'll take your word for it all though...

 

That would probably be the best thing.

 

Speaking for myself, I am pretty sure I don't confuse Germans for Japanese. Still, the defeat of the Axis seems inevitable all across the board.

So your hypothesis is that if the Nazis had ignored all other objectives and went straight for Moscow, it would have been a knock out blow? Interesting.

Why did they choose to divert their attentions to the Ukraine? Access to the Black Sea? Oil fields? It seems like they had to have a good reason for doing so. I'm asking, I really don't know.

Could the Nazis have taken Moscow with all their forces to bear? Could they have held it? Would that not open themselves up for counter attack on the flanks? I think Hitler's ill-conceived battle plan had him fighting on fronts North, Center and South because he knew any one of them could lead to their defeat, even if only one of them could lead to their victory.

The arrogance of the Nazi's would seem to play a part here. Hitler believed in his own success to the point where risky moves didn't seem to be as big a gamble as they really were. "Why not take Ukraine?" "Ooops."

Even if they had taken Moscow, could they have continued to occupy Russia? For how long? My opinion is that the country is way too large for an effective occupation. Also, I think the Soviet people give tacit approval to being repressed by their own leaders, but certainly not by someone else's.

 

when you consider that a nation like finland sided with the nazis purely to fight the ruskies, any pronouncement over german defeat being inevitable is a trifle wishful given that any tinpot region with aspirations to state, nation and nationhood might have got with the nazis to make them better?

 

Many did side with the Nazis for Machiavellian purposes ('the enemy of my enemy is my friend'), but it didn't really help the Nazis win. Look at the experience of the Italian Empire, by the middle of the war, the Germans distrsted them. Not that it bothered the Germans that much when they vanished.

 

ah Finland and their reverse swastika, got to love 'em. Very good at winter warfare the Fins.

 

had a long discussion about finland with someone i met in germany. a little bit of finish heritage gets you a long way it seems

 

I think this thread, one of my better wfcforums creations, although we have gone off topic a little it's good. I've noticed a few of the usual suspects haven't been posting in this thread either...........wonder why?

 

It is very interesting though.

 

Whats next to discuss did Catherine the Great really die because she tried to have sex with a horse or is it just myth. was humpty dumpty pushed?

 

Can we talk about something from the first century BC? That's my period.

 

no. modern history and security studies. this is what the thread shalleth remain

 

The Roman period is very interesting too, but I agree with fan that this thread should remain modern history. Set up an ancient history thread by all means I'd join in.

 

going back to the falklands, something i've been trying to remember unsuccessfully till chance by now is 'shock doctrine.' here it is claimed that shocks to the social or economic order, such as the Falklands war, are in some cases created with the intention of being able to push through unpopular free market reforms in the wake of the crisis. they claim that narrow groups will often do very well by moving into luxurious gated communities while large sections of the population are left with decaying public infrastructure , declining incomes and increased unemployment.

this of course is relevant because its my way of linking the iraq war, the collapse of the soviet union and the end of ww2, all at some point important topics in this thread. in each case they argue that the west, specifically america it seems institute neo-liberal economic policies to the benefit of corporate interest while the normal population are still dazed and confused.

its a bit too 'conspiracy from the man' for my liking, but this thread is designed for mind opening ideas, no?

 

To paraphrase the title of this thread, The Return of the Georgian Army

 

Sounds like a synopsis of the 1980's that fan old chap.

 

The events of the Winter War between Finland and the USSR have become much romanticised. The images of small elite groups of ski troops outmanouevering lumbering armoured forces is not a particularly accurate portrayal of most of the fighting.

Large tracts of Finland are essentially inaccessible even on skis and were left undefended. The large Soviet mechanized forces were forced to follow what few good roads were available and these were easily blocked and covered by pre-registered artillery by the defenders. Only in one sector were ski troops used to any great extent.

The Soviets principal failure in the initial invasion was a lack of effective reconnaisance, leading to a miserable failure to soften up Finnish fixed defences and fortifications sufficiently before commiting armour and infantry. This failure was repeated again and again.

Once this lesson was finally learned, the Soviets fairly quickly dispensed with Finnish forces and completed the defeat of the Finnish nation, leading to the settlement which handed large strategically vital areas of former Finnish territory to the USSR. It was the recapture of these areas which led the Finns to side with the Germans in the initial invasion of the Soviet Union.

More interestingly, when the USSR invaded Finland, Britain and France put into serious planning an attack through Norway and Sweden under the auspices of assisting Finland against Soviet invasion, whilst also cutting the supply of iron ore from Sweden to Germany. The plan was, of course, lunacy, since only around 300,000 troops would be allocated to it and it would have led Britain and France into open war with the Soviet Union, Germany and quite possibly Norway and Sweden too.

Events overtook the plans and the Finns began sueing for peace with the Soviets before they could be actioned (if indeed common sense had not prevented them being so), but it is an interesting footnote, don't you think and not the sort of thing you learn about when I'm not around.

 

You're well read on these topics Lizard.

May I ask how/why/where or is it just an interest of yours?

 

You can ask, but don't be surprised if I'm flippant, terse or derisory in my reply. It's just me being little me.

I used to have a professional interest. As I mentioned yesterday I did some research on German units for a couple of titles by a man called David M.Glantz, who is considered the foremost Western writer on the Soviet Union and it's armed forces during World War II. Specifically, The Battle of Kursk and Zhukov's Greatest Defeat. Much of what I've written here is merely a potted version of stuff what I learned from him Guvnor.

Now I have pretty much exhausted my interest in World War II/Eastern Front issues and I'm now ploughing my way through the Jacobite Wars of independance and the 45 rebellion. It's a bit crap though, because whenever the Scotch are involved, you know they will always lose.

 

mrlizard please tell me more about Zhukov and his greatest defeat, what was that? Also, did he fight the Japanese before WW2, were these his first battles? I'm sure I read this somewhere recently, and I'm sure Russia and Japan had a bit of a spat in the 30's.

 

yep, in 1904 or so. they thought japan would turn over but with a newly mechanized and professional navy the japanese routed them. of course it didn't help that instead of going through the artic the russians had to sail west from europe, round the tip of africa and onwards to north japan, having various hijinks trying to restock on the way.

arguably this then led to the overthrow of the tsarist regime in russia and everything that followed after. it also signalled japanese ascendment to the big boy table and altered the balance of power in asia and the scope of japanese imperialism. as such this war was very important in the beginning and outcome of ww2.

i await lizard's dry put down of my lite-history

 

Though the Japanese did indeed defeat the Tsar's Navy early in the century, you are right Stuboy...Zhukov was involved in combat if not in charge of Soviet forces in the far east. In what the Japanese called the 'Nomonhan Incident' a sizable mechanized battle was fought, and effectively lost by the Japanese. The Russians call it Khalkin Gol. Battle took place in the border area between Japanese occupied Manchuria and Mongolia.

It ended up squashing the political momentum of the group of Japanese military commanders who preferred to fight the Russians to gain the natural resources in Siberia and the frigid coastline immediately north of Japan.

This resulted in thinking the Americans would be an easier opponent and led to the Pearl Harbor attack. Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto was one who thought it would be better to take ground in Siberia than water in the Pacific, even though he ended up being the key architect of the Pacific War and the brain behind the successlike-failure that was the Pearl Harbor attack.

I'm surprised Stalin let Zhukov live long enough to become the Hero to the Soviet Union he became.