Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:18 am
by Loredoctor
Avatar wrote:The severity of the Russian winter defeated Napolean. Indeed, one winter defeated Napolean, and due to sheer bloody-mindedness, IIRC, it took 3 winters to defeat Germany.
There's a world of difference between French technology and German technology. The germans had the advantage they were better prepared. Second, the winter that struck the German army was severe. They had no idea it was coming. Providence, perhaps? ;)
Avatar wrote:I just don't think Hitler cared.
I'd change that to 'Hitler demanded too much' ;). Hitler was adamant that the East had to fall as soon as possible, and was prepared to push his armies too far. This falls back to the generals being too afraid to go against his wishes, and the fact that the soviets were tenacious.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:18 am
by Avatar
So you're suggesting a miscalculation on his part in terms of how fiercely contested the campain would be?

Overconfident as LM suggested?

--A

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:21 am
by Loredoctor
Avatar wrote:So you're suggesting a miscalculation on his part in terms of how fiercely contested the campain would be?

Overconfident as LM suggested?

--A
Overconfidence, absolutely. But there are so many factors at play here that we can't say one thing alone was responsible. Had Stalin not killed his generals, had Stalin not lost it for a month . . .

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:28 am
by Avatar
Had Hitler not broken the treaty in the first place...

Anyway, perhaps you're right, and he thought he was gaining a quick advantage. Maybe it's the benefit of hindsight that makes me certain that in his position, I would have cultivated Stalin rather than attack him.

Two such different fronts...don't care how advantageous you think it'll be, it's dangerous.

Sorta like Bush attacking Iran right now...

--A

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:32 am
by Loredoctor
Myself, I would have attacked in the East around the same time Germany really did - or maybe a bit earlier. But come winter I would have pulled the armies back, intensified bombing of Soviet Industry, focused U-Boats on attacking UK transports to Russia, and listened to my generals. :lol:

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:38 am
by Avatar
Would have been wiser to pull out come winter...maybe mount summer only campaigns. But still forces you to divide your troops.

With the Russian border secure, a much better chance of consolidating in Europe, maybe even Africa. The cost in troops and equipment of the Russian campaigns was crippling to Germany...they're the reason they ended up conscripting boys into the forces I think.

--A

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:41 am
by Loredoctor
Avatar wrote:Would have been wiser to pull out come winter...maybe mount summer only campaigns. But still forces you to divide your troops.

With the Russian border secure, a much better chance of consolidating in Europe, maybe even Africa. The cost in troops and equipment of the Russian campaigns was crippling to Germany...they're the reason they ended up conscripting boys into the forces I think.

--A
Good points. I would have definitely focused on Africa, and then would have pushed into the Middle East as soon as possible. Secure that you can strike into Russia from two fronts, and basically screw with Britain's war against Japan. In my mind, one of Germany's greatest mistakes was killing Rommel. I know he was mainly all show, but he had some brilliant strategies. If they had given him more support, he might have won Africa.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:48 am
by Avatar
I certainly think Rommel was under-utilised, but I think securing Europe would have been a more important goal. The war against Japan was doing to the Allies what the war against Russia was doing to the Germans...stretching them dangerusly thin, especially in the pacific theatre.

I seriously would have left Russia alone. Or even better, tried to form an alliance.

--A

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:21 pm
by Loredoctor
Hmmm. But wasn't Nazi fascism extremely anti-Bolshevist?

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:30 pm
by Avatar
Extremely. And the Communists were pretty damn anti-facist.

Nothing that two men with the world to gain couldn't have worked around if they'd tried though I'm sure.

--A

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:59 pm
by Guest
Loremaster wrote:(forgive me, I cant recall his name as I am at work).
Chuikov?

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:10 pm
by Prebe
Sorry! The guest was me. Forgot to log in. As you were gentlemen. Good thread.
Loremaster wrote:In my mind, one of Germany's greatest mistakes was killing Rommel. I know he was mainly all show, but he had some brilliant strategies. If they had given him more support, he might have won Africa.
AFAIR he wasn't killed untill sometime after Africa was lost, and he was there when it fell. Later he had a brief appearance as commander of the Atlantic Wall, before he (post D-day) was suspected to have been involved in an attempt at Hitlers life. Given the choise he took his own life.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:29 pm
by Loredoctor
Prebe wrote:Sorry! The guest was me. Forgot to log in. As you were gentlemen. Good thread.
Loremaster wrote:In my mind, one of Germany's greatest mistakes was killing Rommel. I know he was mainly all show, but he had some brilliant strategies. If they had given him more support, he might have won Africa.
AFAIR he wasn't killed untill sometime after Africa was lost, and he was there when it fell. Later he had a brief appearance as commander of the Atlantic Wall, before he (post D-day) was suspected to have been involved in an attempt at Hitlers life. Given the choise he took his own life.
However, I think Africa was lost because of mistakes of German High Command. Oh, and some excellent British strategies.

Thanks, Prebe.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:56 pm
by Revan
I've inquired into Loremasters assertion that Stalin reacted badly in regards to Operation Barbarossa. I concede this is correct, because many sources come to the same conclusion; Stalin trusted that Hitler would not strike at the Soviet Union. However this does not mean to imply that my earlier point is conceded. I do think, without reservation, that Stalin saw World War II as an opportunity.

Various sources have all stated that Russia was indeed ready for a war. Loremasters case in point that the Soviet Union was not ready to be attacked; it was readying for the opposite. So all the signs point to the fact that Stalin was indeed ready to take advantage of a situation he had long foreseen. The only thing he didn’t foresee is Operation Barbarossa.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:13 pm
by Loredoctor
Great post, Revan.

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:07 am
by Damelon
I wouldn't find fault with that, Revan. Stalin, I'm sure thought the western nations weakening each other provided an opportunity for the Soviets. It was just that Hitler beat him to the punch.

Limitations of intelligence

Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:33 pm
by taraswizard
Consider, too, that Stalin had advanced intelligence that Germany would attack; however, Stalin did not believe it. The efforts of the Comitern agent, Richard Sorge, while living in Japan using his contacts in Germany's Foreign Service and in the Japanese government he got the advanced intelligence of the attack. But as critical as getting the intelligence is getting a decision maker to believe it and act appropriately. Good intelligence is useless if not believed and not acted upon, or not received in a timely manner.