Was wwII a war that this world needed to fight? Give a vote on it and explain your reasoning on the subject. I want good solid reasoning and not some offshoot comment.

If I had to give an opinion, I would say that although WWI was a totally stupid war, WW2 was about the freedom of the world, and was something the world needed to experience not only to learn the complete horrors of war, but also to free the world of Fascist occupation.

The Axis didn't need to fight the war, but the Allies surely did for the obvious reasons.

The poll is highly flawed, in that I am forced to vote "yes" because the allies had to defend themselves, but at the same time, the axis certainly did not have to start it.

The Soviet Union would ultimately start a war regardless of the abscense of Hitler or Mussolini.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The Soviet Union would ultimately start a war regardless of the abscense of Hitler or Mussolini.

But that would have been a different war. And in my opinion an easier war to fight, with western Europe being able to concentrate on the Soviets. It is, however, distasteful to think of having to side with Hitler.

So if the Soviet Union was the protagonist, we'd still be calling it the Second World War if we had the swidespread fighting that took place in the actual World War II. So....same deal, for this argument's sake.

I'm saying that in any event, there would have been another Great War sooner or later, and it would have been most definently victorious for the Western Allies.

The confusing part would be what happens in the Pacific? Would Japan have even bothered attacking the harbor?

Originally posted by The Yankee
So if the Soviet Union was the protagonist, we'd still be calling it the Second World War if we had the swidespread fighting that took place in the actual World War II. So....same deal, for this argument's sake.

Exactly.

Maybe, maybe not. The Americans had their influence and power in the Pacific through the Philipines. But that's another argument for another thread.

I woould have to say no. If France didn't act all so high and mighty and cripple Germany with the Treaty of Versaillies at the end of World War One, Hilter most likely would of died an angsty painter.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The confusing part would be what happens in the Pacific? Would Japan have even bothered attacking the harbor?
unlikely. they were just being opportunistic.

No, or at least no in the manner it was faught. The Birtish, Russians, and French had plenty of opportunities to confront Germany but they didn't. In Asia the Japanese were in the war long before most people think it began. If it wern't for the American embargo and the Europeans fighting amongst themselves then the Pacific part of the war would have ended sooner.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I'm saying that in any event, there would have been another Great War sooner or later, and it would have been most definently victorious for the Western Allies.

The confusing part would be what happens in the Pacific? Would Japan have even bothered attacking the harbor?

I suppose if you use the "Great War" idea, but I think the thread's author was referring to the fight against the Axis.

I do not think Japan would have attacked the harbour. Even though they made some absolutely fantastic strategic blunders in WWII (shocking the Americans so much, that they enter the war and crush the Axis), they would not have been lost upon them the opportunity to cut a good chunk out of the Soviet pie.

Yes, it needed to be fought. But not in the manner that it was.
There is a school of thought which holds that the policy of unconditional surrender did turn out to be more of a hindrance than a help...certainly an alliance of convenience between a post Hitler Germany and the Western Allies against the Red Beast would have created a better course of events than feeding and supplying what remained very much the big foe. Potential was turned to actual.

Getting into bed with the devil in order to defeat a mutual obstruction is one thing, but it often leads to painful long lasting burns in delicate places when he tries to snuggle in afterwards.

I still am not able to understand why Japan would not help crush the Soviets if they truly did want to win the war.

A rather simple one word answer: China.

China and just about all of Southeast Asia....those were the prizes...I would think anyway.

Yep. But further, the Japanese had been given a bloody nose by the Soviets in 1939 in the Far East, and the majority of their army was tied down in China and points south (not to mention the forces needed to garrison the massive empire that it had gained in its early offensives).
Essentially, Japan was primarily a naval power, and its hopes of any victory were to come from that arm. That arm could not affect the Soviets in any serious way.

Moved to History...

From a British point of view this war did not need to be fought. Nazi Germany was not a direct threat to our island. In fact, Hitler wanted an alliance with us so long as he got a free hand in continental Europe. However despite the obvious benefits of France being under German control we could not let the Nazis take over Europe. So we did not need to fight the war but we could not realistically do anything but fight it.

Very true. Britain's interests and reach was such that any alliance with Nazi Germany would have to occur under circumstances of British superiority; Germany's qualifications for such a deal included reducing the RN. The Germans had no means to seriously threaten Britain with annihilation, short of U-Boat blockade, and this was not invulnerable considering the resources of the New World...

In the end, Britain was still the preeminent world power at the beginning of the war, and could not allow a Eurasian challenge to threaten its heartland and interests, particularly one of the character of the Reich.
A Reich on the backfoot, of a changed character, but still possessed of capabilities, would have been an interesting matter.

Originally posted by Sarevok
Was wwII a war that this world needed to fight? Give a vote on it and explain your reasoning on the subject. I want good solid reasoning and not some offshoot comment.

If I had to give an opinion, I would say that although WWI was a totally stupid war, WW2 was about the freedom of the world, and was something the world needed to experience not only to learn the complete horrors of war, but also to free the world of Fascist occupation.

Western Europe and Japan were freed from facist occupation, not the world.

British Foreign policy has been since the middle ages, oppose
the strongest power in Europe (Germany) and ally with the
second strongest (France). This policy is still followed, Russia
and Germany (or EU).

Originally posted by MrPresident
From a British point of view this war did not need to be fought. Nazi Germany was not a direct threat to our island. In fact, Hitler wanted an alliance with us so long as he got a free hand in continental Europe. However despite the obvious benefits of France being under German control we could not let the Nazis take over Europe. So we did not need to fight the war but we could not realistically do anything but fight it.

I wish sometimes britian got invaded by the Nazis before the nazis lost the war, so arogant people wouldnt say things like this. How would France being under Nazi control be a good thing to britian? Are you that anti French or do i just missunderstand the post?

It's called humour, Baldrick.

However, even tangible a threat of the Japanese moving on the Far East of Russia, would surely further split Russia's forces between East and West, rather than letting them focus on the defence of the west.

I would start by saying that while Germany struck the first blow, the totally harsh and undeserving terms of the Treaty of Versilles (sp?) imposed on Germany by the Allies, primarily France, is the true culprit that made war in some form inevitable by facilitaing totalitarian rule in Germany.

I think that if Britain and France had stepped in at the first sign of annexation by Germany (with the excepton of the Ruhr, which they had every right to do) Hitler would not have gotten a big head, relative to what it was, and would have curtailed future external aggressive actions on his part. But as the saying goes, you give them a inch and they take a mile. Encouraging tyrants is not a good thing, which is a lesson I would have thought most European powers would have learned given history.

Unconditional surrender, while it may make sense ideologically, did not practically as far as the Western Allies were concerned. The only party that it benefited was Russia, who needed the strongest continental power kaput. Honestly, after Normany it would not have been all to difficult to assasinate Hitler if maximum effort was allocated. After the Bulge, I would wager that most of the Wehrmacht, and even contingents of the SS by many accounts, would have actively deposed Hitler especially after the Soviet Vistual offensive began. Most Germans at this time indeed believed the Western/Russian alliance would collapse and the Allies would join them against Russia. Dillusional in the way things really were, but if unconditional surrender was not a prerequisite, not so unfounded.

Some bauch and having the Nazis as allies, but in 1945 you could have eaisly enlisted the Wehrmacht and the population to an anti-Bolshevik cause minus Hitler. And while Germany would have escaped some of their war punishment (I would maintain that by 1945 the population had been punished enough, and we still could have tried the ringleaders with an regular surrender/alliance) the post war lives of their victims such as Poland and the other soon to be Eastern Block comrades would have been infinetly better.

So the war was inevitable, but its scale and participants may have varied. I can totally see it happening ten years later with Germany defending against Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and Scandanavia (or using it as an excuse), with the Western allies not participation, or at the very least on a different side. Alterate histories are fun!

-Pat

Originally posted by Sobieski II
I still am not able to understand why Japan would not help crush the Soviets if they truly did want to win the war.

The Soviet Union had their largest army in east Russia prior to the German invasion in 1940. By the time that Army moved west, it was obvious to the Japanese that they would end up fighting the U.S.

Besides, there was nothing the Japanese wanted in East Russia enough to over-extend themselves. The Japanese Armies were hardly equiped to fight in the cold rough terrain of East Russia. At very best, the Russian Army would have retreated west a few hundred miles and abandon the area and so the Japanese would be forced to waste several hundred thousand troops occupying an area with little to no develope resources.

It would have been too much for the Japanese to mount a serious invasion in eastern Russia. Besides, most of the land forces were out south going after resources Japan needed, such as rubber. You can't find a whole lot of rubber in the Martime Province. Also, why bother investing so much to go and try to dig around Siberia for resources? Wouldn't have been worth it. The Japanese proved their point when the Soviet Army was humiliated, as Darkshade said, in 1939.

It would have been a pointless war. The Soviets would still have vast supply lines to reach the underequipped and scattered eastern forces and to rush more forces to the area across Asia. The Japanese were occupied with other occupations and there was no real reason for them to venture into the Martime Province and Siberia anyway. Siberia is actually a very rich land, but only now are they really starting to tap into some of that potential. It just would have cost far too much 60 years ago.

they also had to deal with diplomativc reparations, as japan and russia had signed a non-agression pact and respected the russian military.. .because unlike the finnish and germany campaigns, their first enemy was not some BS general, but Georgi Zhukov.

World War II was completely necessary. You can't just sit around and let a maniac 'cleanse' his country by ruthlessly slaughtering millions of people. Buttkickings were called for, and they were administered.

"I would start by saying that while Germany struck the first blow, the totally harsh and undeserving terms of the Treaty of Versilles (sp?) imposed on Germany by the Allies, primarily France, is the true culprit that made war in some form inevitable by facilitaing totalitarian rule in Germany."

This is absolutely true. Hitler fed on the feelings and revenge and bitterness that the Treaty imposed. Had Germany not been punished so harshly after world war one, the world would have been much different.

Now that doesn't leave out the Soviet Union, but since we've all played the Red Alert series more than once, I think we know what the alternative would have been. ;-)

yup, i am one of the few holders of the original version of Red Alert 1. Be sure to look at my Red Europe scenarios for civ3:PTW which discsses a similar scenario to Red Alert. although i prefer The Old Empires to any of my 3 RE scenarios.

World War II was caused by a history of humiliation. You could point to the Treaty of Versailles all you want, but that was just another blow to humiliate the other guy. France was totally embarassed by unified Germany in 1871. France just managed to strongarm the treaty into harshly punishing Germany.

And no, I am not blaming France for World War II....so put your swords back into their sheaths.

I AM Blaning France for WWII, and for the record I blame Russia for WWI ;)

-Pat

well, waht do you know about it, you were killed on the battlefield of Troja :p j/k

seriously, it needed to be fought, just not for the reasons it was faught....Hitler's stupid ideas.

No, it was not necessary, the basic reasons for it as it was in reality (and not some scare-mongering "the Commies gonna kill us" alternate idea) were completely idiotic, so it was not necessary at all.

By 1939 it was vital, but the removal of Hitler should have occurred long before in the 30s thus avoiding the war. The treaty of Versailles should also have been more lenient thus lessening the power of the likes of Hitler to sway germans. It was to me necessary at the time it happened, but also avoidable beforehand.

Originally posted by Hitro
No, it was not necessary, the basic reasons for it as it was in reality (and not some scare-mongering "the Commies gonna kill us" alternate idea) were completely idiotic, so it was not necessary at all.

why is that? what reasons do you speak of?

Speaking from an American point of view, then, they declared war on us. We just can't have someone punch us in the mouth and not take their f***ing head off. That would be totally un-American.

:lol: you have a point, THEY started the agression, but you cant fight america, too much industiral moight and support, as well as numbers.

I beileve the war had to be fought not only to kick Japans butt for pearl harbor and germany for their agression, but also to get our(America's) economy back on track. The depression was still happening and the war help us out of it. It gave people jobs so people had money again to put into the economy.

this is actually not nation reasons, but its about moral reasons, ocntrary to all my other threads.

Two nations invaded Poland in 1939. Britain and France, who had treaty agreements with Poland, only declared war on one of them.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Two nations invaded Poland in 1939. Britain and France, who had treaty agreements with Poland, only declared war on one of them.
Thats coz Stalin left it a couple of weeks to make it look like he was just protecting Byelorussia.
To return to the original topic I think it is a stupid question. Do any wars need to be fought?

Well, there was an agreement between Hitler and Stalin to carve up Poland. Which was precisely what happened not long after Hitler's forces moved in. I would imagine most Polish people would be more pissed off at France for this because France has always turned back on whatever agreements they made with Poland. Britain, more or less, has been a friend of Poland. At least, more so than a lot of other nations.

Damn double post.

Was WWII a War that needed to be fought?

No, if only the allied( Britain and France ) did not agree with tha german on the Munich Conference the whole history may be re-written. Since Hitler would be thinking twice before attacking Poland

By the way Munich Conference is when the German is asking for teritory called Sudeteland( If I have not mistaken) in Chekoslovakia

I did once see a rather excellent article which described the chances of German sucess if the war had began with the invasion of Czechoslovakia rather than Poland. The article claimed the chances of Hitler defeating the Czechs and turning on Poland, France and Britain and so on were about nil. I could summarise it if needs be, but the authors conclusion was that Chamberlin and the French leader doomed Europe to a long drawn out war at Munich.

very true, germany wouldnt have won so easily had the war started earlier.

Originally posted by privatehudson
I did once see a rather excellent article which described the chances of German sucess if the war had began with the invasion of Czechoslovakia rather than Poland. The article claimed the chances of Hitler defeating the Czechs and turning on Poland, France and Britain and so on were about nil.

Leading up to Munich the German generals were very worried indeed about dislodging the Czechs from their mountain fortresses. As for the Poles, they moved in to take Tsechen off the Czechs after the surrender at Munich like dirty little opportunists.
The British and french were inactive for about 10 months on the western front in '39/40 so I don't know If they would have been any quicker in 1938. The French unfortunately had a defeatist attitude and British just weren't ready.
I think the Russians had an alliance to go to war if Czechoslovakia was attacked but only if the French declared war first. But they too, were willing to avoid conflict at all costs.

The 1938 War:

The basis for this argument is around the Munich agreement reached in 1938, between Hitler, Chamberlin and Daladier, which agreed (without consent of the Czechs I may add) to sign away the sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia in order to avoid conflict over the country. Hitler had shown hints of wanting war over the issue, long after the time, during the end of the war he was known to have cursed the British and French for denying him the right to invade Czechoslovakia. The allies though choose appeasement, and shot themselves in the foot. *

Hitler soon overran the remainder of Czechoslovakia without a struggle as the Sudentanland was the industrial and economic heart of the country. This industrial and military might was transferred intact to the aims of Hitler and almost immediately, Hitler used the Czech equipment to equip 4 new panzer divisions and 2 SS divisions. His economic power increased, and he was confident of his ability to overrun Poland without interference. Knowing the timid nature of the Allies then, at the very least Hitler knew any declaration of war would be followed by a weak and timid allied threat in the west.

Now Imagine the situation had Hitler got what he himself hinted he wanted, an invasion of Czechoslovakia. Germany’s armed forces then could be summarised as weak to say the least:

Army: The vaunted and feared Panzer divisions that did much to ravage Poland and the west numbered just 3 in 1938, with 1 motorised division. Given the terrain of Czechoslovakia, mountainous rather than the plains of Poland, the panzers would have had a difficult time sweeping through the Czech army. Available infantry forces would number around 40-50 divisions, at least 8 of which would be needed to defend the west against Allied counter offensives.

Navy: The feared weapons at sea simply did not exist. None of the German battleships (bar pocket battleships, more heavy cruisers though) had been finished. The U-boat threat was minor as there were barely a few dozen capable of ocean going duties in 1938, hardly enough to threaten the British Isles with starvation.

Air Force: This is important. One of the british claims to back the munich agreement was that the british needed a year to convert the RAF over to spitfires and hurricanes, and develop radar. This is true, but irrelevant. The Luftwaffe had not yet introduced to front line service the ME109, and were still largely using biplanes. Their bombers were light, short ranged planes, incapable of either reaching serious british targets., or if they did incapable of having a major effect. The RAF didn’t need a year because they would have faced opposition on the almost exact same level over Europe, and the germans were incapable of forcing a battle of Britain situation.

The Czech army on the other hand wasn’t actually that bad, their tanks were used by the germans for some 3-4 years after the agreement and their factories continued to churn out weapons of high standard for the entire war (the excellent British Bren light machine gun is an adapted Czech design, hence the name, and amalgamation of Brno and Enfield, the two companies involved in the design). Though small in size, their forces were in naturally defensible terrain and well trained. Though probably doomed to loose by themselves by weight of numbers alone, the chances are that the Czechs would have made the germans pay dearly for their victory.

Then factor in other nations: The British were still re-arming and had barely more than 2 ready and available divisions in 1938, hardly a threat. The French were large, with capable tanks and planes, but useless doctrines and commanders. Their timid nature of this period would mean any potential intervention would be limited.

The Russians of this stage were still reeling from the purges introduced by Stalin and were still benefiting from the non aggression pact that saw german technology being introduced to the country in return for training the germans in many things in secret. Enter Poland! Though considered unimportant mostly in WWII, the polish armed forces were large and mobile. With the germans busy fighting the Czechs, the chance would be open for the Poles to intervene seriously and with major effect, perhaps inspiring the western allies into action.

Even assuming no allies intervened to an extent to make a difference and Hitler took the country by force, the results would have been a disaster for him. Having taken quite heavy losses in Czechoslovakia, how would he refit his shattered forces? The Czech equipment adopted by the germans in 1938 would mostly have been destroyed in combat or scuttled by their crews. The factories may have been damaged. Overall, even with the year between then and the next campaign it seems unlikely that the germans would have been capable of expanding their motorised/mechanised forces much beyond 5 or so divisions. The question would then come of whom to strike at next, and neither would be ideal. To strike east at Poland would leave the west still almost undefended, with the british rapidly increasing their numbers and influence, and the French perhaps finally realising offensive action was needed. To strike west, with the army smaller and less capable of blitzkrieg tactics would spell a drawn out slog of a campaign.

Even had Hitler then subdued Poland, the issue of France and Britain, a strong defensive force would prove a serious problem for Hitler. Still with relatively few panzer/rapid troops his drive into France would be slow and not unlike the first world war, with scattered panzers making no real headway due to their lack of numbers in any one spot due to the need to combat the superior weight of numbers of the allied forces.

As for Germany’s allies, would Italy have challenged the Allies in such a situation? A strong and no doubt prolonged anglo-french presence in the Med would say no. Japan of course would be largely unaffected by the issues here, but would she have considered a war against a strong British Empire, unhindered by a serious invasion threat and the Americans, unhindered by the need to be a major partner in liberating half of Europe, who would be capable of switching to a “pacific first” attitude given the stability of any European war?

Ultimately Hitler would have found his country fighting alone against increasing odds, with precious few victories won by blitzkrieg due to the almost total lack of panzer divisions. All thoughts of striking at Russia seem remote given the situation at the time and the delay caused in the timetable before necessary troops could be made available. And that’s assuming France could somehow be subdued enough to allow such a swift in emphasis.

It’s for these reasons and more that when Chamberlin returned from Munich in 1938, a small minority amongst his own cabinet felt he had sold Britain down the river along with her Czech friends. Almost alone amongst this group, one man was outspoken enough to defy his party leader’s wishes, Winston Churchill. In a speech in parliament he roughly said “We have suffered a defeat, without actually having fought”. At the time no-one knew just how prophetic those words were. The allies suffered their first, and what may have proved ultimately to be their most costly mistake of the war.

* It is to be noted here, that whilst both Britain and France were behaving appallingly, dividing other people’s land without inviting them to speak on the issue, France was being downright treacherous. France was allied to the Czechs, a treaty that required them to come to their aid in the event of invasion. France choose Munich to attempt peace, but in doing so betrayed her alliance.

That's a summary post I once made about it based on the articel I read :)

Originally posted by privatehudson

That's a summary post I once made about it based on the articel I read :)

Thats a summary???

The article was 15 pages long :)

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Two nations invaded Poland in 1939. Britain and France, who had treaty agreements with Poland, only declared war on one of them.

Churchill knew better than Hilter, One at a time, ... one at a time.

except the other never was really hit back either...

Originally posted by Sarevok

If I had to give an opinion, I would say that although WWI was a totally stupid war, WW2 was about the freedom of the world, and was something the world needed to experience not only to learn the complete horrors of war, but also to free the world of Fascist occupation.

so WWI was not about the freedom of the world? Well, i don't mind you saying that WWI was a stupid war (they all are in some way) but WWI was inevitable. The system of the Vienna Convention in 1815 & other manifestations made it bount to happen....

true, but SHOULD it have happened? it was a totally pointless war.

There was no need for it no, none of the powers were especially so evil that they needed removing from the world stage.

true, WW1 despite all its insane brutality was brutal almost exclusively to the soldiers that fought in it, unlike WW2. one bright spot in a very dark room.

Should or shouldn't it have been fought? Its all a matter of viewpoint.
The Germans would have said yes because they wanted back Danzig. But they they also could have said no because they didn't beleive it should have blown out to a world war.
The Poles would have said yes because they didn't want to give up the corridor but also no because the Germans shouldn't have wanted it in the first place.
The Americans would have said yes coz nations like Nazi Germany and Japan needed to be stopped but then again no because those kind of countries shouldn't have existsed in the first place.

Etc, etc, etc....

but what do you think?

What Kind of question is this? "Was WWII needed?"

You could ask "Was WWII benificial?" or "Was the objective (of world dommination by germany) achivable by any other fasion?"

But was it needed? It is a very broad and unaserable question.

Our allies were taken France, Poland, austria, greece, russia, norway. They violated the Netherlands nutrality.Germany thretened England, Africa. We were one of the biggest countries (Millitary wise) in the world.:( If we didn't go in i have no doute that within a few year all of euro-asia and afirica would be in germanies hands. also the western frount was not negosble Japan attacked us so we needed to attack back.

Actualy War in Europe was comming to an end by the time the US joined.

As for Japan, I agrea.

The Second World War was caused by the overly harsh terms which ended the First World War.

its quite a simple question actually. were the reasons/actionsd of the war something that needed to happen? I think so simply because it showed the world just how cruel it could be and after it came the desire never to see that again.

One could say if we did not know about hitler, Sadam might not seem as much of a threat. This is the only lesson learned from WWII. (although it is possible someone finaly learned not to attack russia in the winter)

Now the question is "Is Sadam that much of a threat?"

"although it is possible someone finaly learned not to attack russia in the winter"


The question isn't about that... russian invasions always started during the spring or the summer... The question is more to find a way to reach Moscow in less than 6 months.

Well anyway, I don't want to talk in here... I'm not really glad to realize what Civilization's players minds are about...

why is that? reffering to the last post i saw you put up in my poll, apparently you believe that most people at civ fanatics are miltarists (ooh, I should make a poll...). They arent militarists, its called looking at history and its events. It it not people saying that the murder of 55 Million Russians in WW2 is a great thing, it is looking at these events and leaning from these events.

Originally posted by Sarevok
but what do you think?

Yes coz there were a lot of unsettle issues in Europe after WW1 that needed to reach a conclusion.
And 55 million Russians didn't die about 20 million did. I think 55 million is for the whole world.

Stalins killing of retreating russian did not teach a lesson to the world.

I'm saying becouse of hitler and WWII, the US is more justified to go to war early on iraq. That way Sadam won't become anouther Hitler.

Unless your refering to Naggasaki and Hiroshima.

World War 2 was fought because man kind is dark.
Germany should have stopped Hitler and his fascist pigs.
Japan should have choose a diffiernt road for expansion.
Italy should have stayed away from africa.
Spain should have had support to save democracy.
We did not do that so we ended up with WW2.
The Allies were justified for saving democracy.
Man creates it's own problems.
There is only redemption through Jesus Christ.
When he comes all wars will end for now we must endure earth.

Originally posted by Ballazic

There is only redemption through Jesus Christ.
When he comes all wars will end for now we must endure earth.

Well he's taking his bloody time! Surely after the first world war he'd realise we need help.

In the book Red Storm Rising, Tom Clancy depicts a massive, surprise, well thought out Soviet invasion into Germany, with the intension of taking over Europe. In 1941 this situation came close to reality, although the context was different. Stalin helped to make Hitler dictator of Germany because he was using Hitler to provoke the second World War. Stalin wanted Hitler to wage war over Europe so that it would be weakened by hatred and destruction. Then he would invade as a “liberator from the Nazis” and take control of all of it, including Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. Stalin’s plot was a masterpiece; even today most people still aren’t aware about it. However, he failed in his secret attempt because Hitler found out about his plans and launched a last-resort preventive strike at the USSR in 1941. He destroyed most of the Soviet Union’s offensive capacity, removing the immediate threat to Europe. Had this action not been taken, the Soviet flag would have flown in London by the end of 1941.

No matter what, WW2 would've been fought. The only things that could've been different were;

-The lenght of the war
-The casualties
-The victors

but was it neccesary?

Originally posted by MattE
In the book Red Storm Rising, Tom Clancy depicts a massive, surprise, well thought out Soviet invasion into Germany, with the intension of taking over Europe. In 1941 this situation came close to reality, although the context was different. Stalin helped to make Hitler dictator of Germany because he was using Hitler to provoke the second World War. Stalin wanted Hitler to wage war over Europe so that it would be weakened by hatred and destruction. Then he would invade as a “liberator from the Nazis” and take control of all of it, including Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. Stalin’s plot was a masterpiece; even today most people still aren’t aware about it. However, he failed in his secret attempt because Hitler found out about his plans and launched a last-resort preventive strike at the USSR in 1941. He destroyed most of the Soviet Union’s offensive capacity, removing the immediate threat to Europe. Had this action not been taken, the Soviet flag would have flown in London by the end of 1941.

No matter what, WW2 would've been fought. The only things that could've been different were;

-The lenght of the war
-The casualties
-The victors

Ok Ignoring for a moment the whole thing about the USSR planning to strike first, I'd like to take issue with your comments about the UK falling in 1941. Russia had almost no navy to speak of and next to nothing of a heavy bomber force that would be capable of launching the equivalent of the Battle of Britain. Russia's army was still reeling from purges and was hardly the wonder machine you make it out to be, first strike or not. I'd like to see how you would propose the Russians invade with such forces when the germans, who were in better condition to do so could not. If the RAF didn't massacre russian attempts to cross the channel or north sea, you can bet the RN (somewhat stronger since it would be freed from some of it's convoy duties) would.

The continent I don't know about, but given the atrocious performance of Russian armies in mid 1941 I doubt they would have made as much headway as you suggest. Germany would have had to have been severely understrength to fall under a Russian advance at that date.

Get ready for a lot of reading...

Actually back then the Russian military was the most powerful force in the world.

- Starting in 1939, the largest mobilization of troops in history began in the Soviet Union, bringing two strategic echelons with 26 massive armies to the western frontier. The Soviet army consisted of five million men. Six more million would be drafted in the summer of 1941. “Between July 1939 and June 1941, Stalin increased the number of Soviet tank divisions from zero to 61, with dozens more in preparation. By June 1941, the “neutral” Soviet Union had assembled more tank divisions than all the other countries of the world put together.

- In June 1941 Hitler threw ten mechanized corps into battle, of which each, on average, had more than 340 light and medium tanks. By contrast, Stalin had 29 mechanized corps, each with 1,031 light, medium, and heavy tanks.

- In mid-1941, the Red Army was the only military force in the world with amphibious tanks. Stalin had 4,000 of these weapons of offensive war; Germany had none.

- By June 1941, the Soviets had increased the number of their paratroop corps from zero to five, and the number of their field artillery regiments from 144 to 341, in each case more than all the other armies of the world put together.

- By June 1941, the Soviet navy had more than 218 submarines in service, with another 91 under construction.

- Stalin ordered construction of more than 100,000 Su-2 (bomber aircraft), as well as the training of 150,000 pilots.

- Germany did not begin in earnest to put its economy on war footing until early 1942, two years after the Soviet Union. But whereas Soviet military and arms production reached a crescendo in the summer of 1941, Germany’s did not peak until 1944 – three years too late. In 1939, the percent of the Germany economy focused on war was 9%. In the Soviet Union it was 25%. By 1941, Germany’s percent rose to 19, while it was 43% in the USSR.

- In addition to Red Army and NKVD troops, the Soviet Union also employed hundreds of thousands of prisoners from its concentration camps in the east and north. These were the Black Divisions, called like so because of the black uniforms of the zeks.

* In 1933, the German colonel (later general) Heinz Guderian visited a Soviet locomotive engineering works at Kharkov. Guderian saw that, in addition to locomotives, the yard was producing tanks as a side product. The tanks were being produced at the rate of 22 a day. When assessing the output of side products at one Soviet plant in peacetime, it must be remembered that in 1933 Germany was producing no tanks at all. In 1939, Hitler came into the Second World War with 3,195 tanks, that is, less than the Kharkov locomotive engineering works, working on a peacetime footing, produced in six months. Even after the war began, the United States only had 400 tanks, 19 days worth at the Kharkov yard. *

***MORE TO COME***

- Armies were formed in the western regions at the time when the Soviet Union was invading Poland, Finland, Bessarabia , and the Baltic States . After the acquisitions however, these armies, extremely expensive to maintain, were not disbanded. This was unprecedented in the whole of Soviet history. Until this point, armies had only been formed during wartime, and only to fight in war. In fact, the quantity and strength of the armies was significantly increased. In June 1940 the 16th and 17th armies were formed. This event was noteworthy because it was the first time in Soviet history that a number higher than 16 was used to designate an army. Yet these armies were far superior to any used before in the Soviet Union. In July 1940, the 26th army appeared on the German frontier. This was not a mistake in numbering sequence. In fact, the Soviet Union had secretly created not one more army, but eleven more: the 18th, 19th, 20th, and so forth until 28th. In May 1941 the 23rd and 27th appeared on the border. In June 1941 the rest emerged there as well except for a few which were assigned to the Japanese front. In addition, three NKVD armies were stationed behind the two echelons of the Red Army. Sometimes, these three NKVD armies are referred to as the Third Strategic Echelon. This whole mobilization plan was decided by Stalin at a Politburo meeting on August 19, 1939, four days before the Nazi-German pact was signed.

- Hitler’s military contained 4 blitzkrieg mechanized tank groups. Three were used in the invasion of France, and four were used in Operation Barbarossa. Each one usually had between 600 and 1,000 tanks, and on occasions as many as 1,250 tanks, along with a considerable number of infantry and artillery.

- The Soviet equivalent of a blitzkrieg tank group was a shock army. Shock armies had about 1,000 tanks, sometimes much more. The only other difference is that Hitler had 4 tank groups while Stalin had sixteen shock armies. Yes, fully 16 of the armies located in west Russia were of shock army status. Every one of these armies, except for the 23rd which was near Finland, was situated directly on the frontier with Germany and its ally Romania.

- Three shock armies exceeded the norm: the 6th, 9th, and 10th. The 6th and 9th had 2,350 tanks, 700 armoured vehicles, over 4,000 guns and mortars and more than 250,000 soldiers and officers. In addition to their basic complements, these armies were given ten to twelve heavy artillery regiments, NKVD units and much else besides.

*At the peak of the 9th army’s power, it contained 20 divisions. Its seven corps had 3,341 tanks. This was roughly the same number as the Wehrmacht had; in quality, they were superior. {p.147}. Containing more power than the entire German land force, the 9th army was the most powerful in the world and in history. This massive army was positioned on the border with Romania. Although the 9th army was very strong, it only had 20 divisions. The First Strategic Echelon had in all 170 division. The Second Echelon had 77. (There were so many new divisions, corps, and armies that Stalin had to free most of his generals in prison). They all began to move westward on June 13, 1941. June 13 marks the beginning of the greatest displacement of troops in the history of civilization. *

***YOU WANT MORE?***

Like I said before a lot of reading but in the end it will be worth it.

Yes, some links to show where you got this information would be nice, I'm assuming you rely on the information from the likes of Suvorov, something currently hotly in contention. Especially the information I was reffering to on the plans to invade the uk, I am going to assume "amphibious" does not mean it can cross the channel :rolleyes:

I got this info from a document titled:

The Instigation of World War II: Stalin's Secret Plan to Conquer Europe.

Yes, the document was provided by Viktor Suvorov. And incase you don't know he spent much of his life researching this subject, so he should receive credit for his investigations. He was trained as a Soviet army officer in Kalinin and Kiev. Later, after staff level service and completing studies at the Diplomatic Military Academy in 1974, he served as a Soviet military intelligence (GRU) officer, working for four years in Geneva under diplomatic cover. He defected in 1978.

Okay the details I've been pointing out all contribute to your comment about the invasion of the UK, and whether or not it would succeded will never be known. But I agree with what is being said. Most people don't believe this is true because the invasion never took place and was over-shadowed by Barbarrossa. So here's some more info to help my cause...

- The tanks that were being produced at the Kharkov locomotive engineering plant (See last posts), had the name Mark BT, initials for the Russian words “high-speed tank.” The Mark BTs had a speed of one mile per minute and a radius of action without refueling of 440 miles. These tanks were also the first ever to have a diesel engine and they carried a weapons system that was very powerful at the time. Having said so many good things about these tanks, let us note one disadvantage: it was impossible to use them on Soviet territory.

- The tanks substituted heavy armor for speed and the ability to produce enormous quantities of them. This is similar to a medieval knight being substituted by a light mobile cavalry warrior. Genghis Khan used hordes of fast-moving troops, capable of covering vast distances and delivering lightning strikes deep in enemy territory. This is just what the Mark BT tanks were like. They were only useful as an invasive tank

- By the end of 1939, more of them had been produced than any other tank by any other country in the world. They had a pair of detachable caterpillar tracks that let them travel anywhere, but slowly. To go fast, they must be on a good road and discard the tracks to continue traveling on wheels. The caterpillar tracks were only there so that the tank could reach a highway. Fighting a war with the tracks was extremely hard and wasteful. Therefore, since there were no good roads in the Soviet Union, the tanks were made to fight in a country that did not lack highways.

*What were the Soviet Union’s neighbors? Then, there were no good roads in China, Mongolia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, and Turkey. To the question of where the potential of these tanks could be employed, there is only one possible answer: Western Europe. The caterpillar tracks would be used in crossing Russian and Polish territory until the BT tanks reached the German autobahns. Then they would throw away the tracks and shoot ahead like a racing car. Even in 1985 the Soviet Union did not have one kilometer of highway which could have been even remotely described as a motorway. Fifty years ago, and for long after that, there were no motorways in Soviet territory. Nor were there motorways in any of the countries which bordered the Soviet Union in 1938. One year later, however, Stalin partitioned Poland under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and thereby established a common frontier with a country which did have motorways. That country was Germany. It is said that Stalin’s tanks were not ready for war. That was not so. They were not ready for a defense war on their own territory. When Hitler began Operation Barbarossa, practically all the Mark BT tanks were cast aside. They were not designed to fight off roads, even with caterpillar tracks. They were, however, designed to wage war on others. When news reached the generals in these trains that the Germans have begun the war, the BT corps were disbanded because they were now useless. If Hitler had not begun the war first, these corps would not be disbanded, but used on the German autobahns.*

***MORE COMMING***

It never would have happened simply because the Russian army had no viable means to launch an invasion of Britain with as I mentioned. Other details I will try to look at later. My suggestion though is to combine these posts of yours into their own thread rather than continue to hijack this one, whilst related to should it have been fought, dragging this thread onto the topic of Stalin's plans or otherwise is only going to incur some wrath.

And yes I have heard of the gentleman you mention actually, although admitedly not before today, before even making a remark I bothered to check up on some of the things you said, this is why I have not yet said "total rubbish", because I'd prefer to investigate the source information before denouncing it. Since I have not the pleasure of reading the article unlike you clearly have, I have a tendency to wish to read it before denouncing it. I don't suppose it happens to be online by any chance does it? I would be very interested to see how he proved some of this information for one. So far the comments I have seen say millitary sources released after 1991, but their reliability or otherwise is something I have yet to discover fully.

And now here is a little about their navy which you asked about earlier...

- The Soviet Union in the 1930s assembled the Dnieper River Naval Flotilla. By the beginning of the Second World War, the Flotilla consisted of 120 naval vessels and launches, including eight powerful monitors, each with a displacement of 2000 tons, armour in excess of 100mm, and 152mm cannons. The Dnieper Flotilla also had its own air arm, as well as shore and anti-aircraft batteries.

- In addition, every bridge over the Dnieper, the largest river in the western Soviet Union, was mined. Any force coming from the west would have been stopped at the river, or at least delayed for several months from attacking the Ukrainian bases and factories. But as soon as Hitler turned his back on him, Stalin ordered that the mines be cleared from the Dnieper bridges, and that the Flotilla be disbanded. Instead of one defensive flotilla, Stalin then created two new ones, the Danube Flotilla and the Pinsk Flotilla. In the course of Zhukov’s “liberation campaign” in the Romanian frontier regions, Stalin took Bukovina and Bessarabia from Romania. Right at the mouth of the Danube, a sector of the eastern bank of the river, some dozens of kilometers long, passed into the possession of the Soviet Union. The Danube Flotilla, which had been set up in expectation of this event, was moved there immediately.

- In the event of a defensive war, the entire Danube Flotilla would have fallen into a trap the moment hostilities began. The enemy could simply rake the Soviet vessels with machine-gun fire, preventing them from raising anchor and casting off. Romanian troops were sometimes only 300 metres away. In a defensive war, moreover, the Danube Naval Flotilla would have had no useful function. Given its location, there were simply no defensive tasks for it to fulfill. The Danube Delta consists of hundreds of lakes, impassible swamps, and hundreds of square kilometers of reed marshes. It is the last place through which an enemy would choose to attack the Soviet Union. There was only one way to explain the sitting of the Danube Flotilla; its purpose was to carry out combat operations upstream while Red Army troops were making a general advance. If you gather 70 river vessels in the delta of a great river, they have nowhere to go except upstream. This meant that they would have to operate on the territory of Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Germany.

- In an offensive war, the Danube Flotilla would be a mortal danger to Germany. It only had to move 130 kilometers upstream for the strategic bridge at Chernavada to come under fire from its guns. That in its turn would mean the flow of oil from Ploesti to the port of Constanza would be cut off. Another 200 kilometers upstream and the entire German war machine would come to a halt simply because German tanks, aircraft, and submarines would have been left without fuel.

***MORE NEXT***

*sighs*

Please not my comment about a new thread ok? I imagine this will get you into trouble soon....

Hope it works. And by the way I haven't finished reading it all yet so I'm not exactly sure how he got this info, but it really is facinating to read and when you think about it very true. And like I said before the invasion could've failed and we will never know. However I believe the invasion was being prepared.

I'm not Hijacking anything, simply stating the facts of a notion I believe to be true. But if you want I can continue to post things if you want, but until then I'll stop.

Cheers

P.S. Tried to attach doc, but was givin a page saying invalid format.

I'm just suggesting gathering them all in another thread and allowing this one to continue on topic. I've no problem with reading the info, but I think Sarevok might get annoyed with this topic being discussed here when it is not the one he started...

Okay, good point. It was just the way you wrote it before, it sounded hostile.

That all sounds very rosy, it also sounds extremely untrue im afraid. You notice the whole thing is followed by 'but it was in preparation for an OFFENSIVE' which apparently made this super army useless on the defensive. Erm... ok then. It must have been really, really useless on the defensive considering how badly the Soviets got their asses wupped in the early stages of Barbarossa.

What really makes me think it is nonsense however was an early comment regarding Stalin influencing Hitlers rise to power to provide an excuse for invasion. I can promise you without any fear of contradiction that that is complete and total fiction. The circumstances leading up to Hitlers takeover of Germany simply do not contain any episodes which were open to such a foreign intervention or influence. The number of events which occured prior to his attaining the Reich Chancellor post, which could have prevented him coming to power is quite astounding. It is quite literally a total fluke that he managed to get to where he did. Nice story though.


Re the original question, yes the war was inevitable due to Versaille. The Great Powers basically gifted German extremists a platform. It is interesting to note however regarding the earlier talk of unconditional surrender demands, that in 1942 or 1943 (sorry, I cannot recall which it was) Admiral Canaris the head of the Abweir held a secret meeting with American and British intelligence agents in Spain during which he offered them Hitler and immediate peace including the return of all Western occupied nations. Germany would however get to keep her new Eastern possessions. This offer was passed to the American president who turned it down flat proclaiming that there would be no peace without unconditional surrender. Kinda interesting to think what might have been.

Sorry privatehudson I wasn't going to continue but now I will...

Don't know how to quote so I'll just write it out...

"You notice the whole thing is followed by 'but it was in preparation for an OFFENSIVE' which apparently made this super army useless on the defensive. Erm... ok then. It must have been really, really useless on the defensive considering how badly the Soviets got their asses wupped in the early stages of Barbarossa."

Yes, they were that useless.

- The Soviet soldiers were not trained to fight defensively, once Barbarossa began the Soviets had to learn from scatch.

- The Soviets best tanks at the time were unable to fight on Soviet terrain. So why build them? The only suitable place for them to be deployed was Western Europe.

- Paratroops are purely an offensive unit. The Soviets had over 1,000,000 paratroopers. It would be a ridiculous waste of resources to use these troops in a defensive war.

- Why did the Soviets amass such massive armies on Germany's boarder when they were allies?

- Soviets had more than 16 shock armies or as the Germans called them Blitzkreig Armies. Invasion Armies.

- Why did they remove the mines Dnieper River? Did they want to Germans to invade with out at least taking some casualties that would've been inflicted had the mines been left alone? I don't think so.

- Besides throwing a million parachutists into western Europe, the Soviet command also wanted a new way to send thousands of tanks. Oleg Antonov suggested that an ordinary tank should be fitted with wings and a tail that could be discarded after the flight. This system was called the KT, which stands for the Russian words “winged tank.” Of course, the risk involved in flying a tank was very high, but communists do not value human life. It is absolutely ridiculous to use a flying tank for defensive purposes so it was clear that this system was only meant to be used to quickly throw a vastly large quantity of tanks to the west.

- The immense creation of parachutists, gliders, and winged tanks signified the USSR’s interest in invasion. Another thing that illustrated this is the fact that their combat airplanes were mostly bombers, not fighters . The air force was given many strategic locations to be bombed. The IL-2 was an airfield bomber. When he created this aggressive aircraft, Sergei Ilyushin added a defensive detail: he made a seat for the pilot who attacked the targets and a seat for a guy who protected the aircraft with a machine gun. Stalin personally telephoned Ilyushin and ordered him to discard the rear gunner and his machine gun, and to produce the IL-2 as a one-seater aircraft. Stalin, it seemed, needed the IL-2 for a situation in which not one enemy fighter would succeed in taking off.

*Lenin on World War I: “We have ended one phase of wars and must prepare ourselves for the next.” (Speech to the VIII Congress of the Soviets, 1920).*

It simply doesnt wash in the slightest man, armies just do not work that way, even if you fight a purely offensive war then you need to be able to hold the land that you have taken. If by some miraculous impossiblity the events you have described were true then it would simply show the Soviets to be even more useless and incompetent at the time than many of us already believe.

Re the massed armies on the border, that is just common sense. Despite the Ribbentrop agreement Russia was under NO illusions about their level of friendship with the Nazi's. Hutler had for many years been based his entire campaign for power on the basis of the total annihilation of Marxism. To imagine that the Russians simply didnt notice or didnt take it seriously considering the brutal suppression of communists in Germany is just a flight of fancy.

“Hitler will attack the west, with his main forces, while Moscow will wish to take full advantage of its position.” – Trotsky (Bulletin of the Opposition, Numbers 79-80, June 21, 1939)

“In the event of a general conflict, only one country can win. That country is the Soviet Union.” – Hitler (To Lord Halifax at Obersalzburg, November 19, 1937)

Yes armies can work like that if the leader, in this case Stalin, orders it. An example to prove:

Special NKVD frontier troop divisions were dispersed throughout the Soviet western border. Interestingly; at the time of the German attack these elite and highly trained NKVD troops, stationed on bridges at the frontier, had made no preparations either to repel an attack or defend the bridges. They yielded them to the enemy without a fight. When they had to capture the western part of a frontier bridge, however, these frontier troops revealed excellent training, and displayed both courage and bravery. On June 26, 1941, NKVD divisions skillfully executed an offensive movement near Kiliya on the Romanian border. When they had to defend the eastern part of the bridge, these same soldiers showed a total lack of preparedness. It was simply that no one had ever put them through any defensive exercises. These are not the actions of an army that wishes to defend its territory.

A country which is preparing its defense deploys its army deep inside its own territory, and not on its very frontier. The object is to prevent the enemy from destroying the main defending forces with one surprise attack. A defending side will normally build a security zone in the frontier areas in plenty of time; a zone where the terrain has been saturated with traps, engineered defenses, obstacles, and minefields. The defending side will deliberately avoid constructing anything related to industry or transport in this zone; nor will it keep any heavy military formations or large quantities of supplies there. On the contrary, timely preparations will have been made to blow up all bridges, tunnels, and roads in this zone.

Once inside the security zone, the aggressor loses speed of movement, and his troops sustain losses before they even encounter the main forces of the defender. Only small but highly mobile [partisan] detachments of the defending side operate in the security zone. These detachments spring ambushes, launch surprise attacks, and then quickly withdraw to previously prepared positions. Light detachments create the impression that they are the main force, compelling the aggressor to stop, deploy his forces and waste his shells on areas where there is nothing to hit. The light detachments, meanwhile, secretly withdraw to prepare new ambushes…

The deeper the security zone, the better. As he breaks into a deep security zone, an aggressor involuntarily reveals the main direction of his thrust, and loses the advantage of surprise. Since he does not know how deep the security zone is, he cannot predict when he will encounter the defender’s main forces; thus the [strategic] initiative has passed to the defending forces.

However, Meretskov [whose actions were undeniably known by Stalin] ordered that:

- The security zone which had previously been constructed along the Soviet Union’s western frontiers should be dismantled, the teams of demolition sappers disbanded, the explosive charges removed, the mines rendered harmless, and the defense obstacles razed to the ground.

- No security zone should be set up in the new lands [that were annexed by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939].

- The main forces of the Red Army should be moved right up to the frontiers, without a security zone to protect them.

- The strategic resources of the Red Army should be brought from the heart of the country and concentrated directly on the frontier [without a security zone to protect them].

- A vast works program should begin at once to build a network of roads , rails, and airfields in western Byelorussia and in the western Ukraine: single-lane roads were to be made into dual-lane roads, the capacity of the roads was to be increased; and new roads leading directly to the German border were to be built.

- The bridges across the Buug River leading directly into Germany are to be left intact.

This to me sounds like a leader completely ignoring defence and focusing on offense.

Firstly I would like to see some actual proof of those orders and unit placings.

Secondly Stalin received pre-warning of the invasion, even if he didnt truly believe it would happen, to not set up any defense at all against a country camped on his borders who has just the year before conquered half of Europe would have been utterly mindless to the point of imbicility.

Thirdly, the Soviet union was still transporting huge amounts of supplies to Germany at the time of the German invasion, hardly the actions of a nation on the brink of an invasion themselves.

Fourthly, that reference to soldiers being great during an offensive manouvre but pathetic during the defensive points more towards troops who are simply not well trained. This is supported by the fact that on the offensive troops have the initiative and the time to attack to their own plan, on the defensive their actions are by necessity reactionary, ie a true test of their skill. I still say that if the Soviet troops were unable to defend as well as attack it basically means they were not any good.

Fifthly and finally you have not yet commented on my repudiation of your earlier claim that Stalin influenced hitlers rise to power. :)

Firstly if you want proof you could try a search engine, I don't know if it will work but it could.

Secondly the USSR did have defenses set up but were ordered to remove them in preparation for their invasion.

Thirdly I'm not sure about the Commies sending supplies to the Germans... Just doesn't sound like something they'd do, so I'll just have to take your word for it. But the Soviets were staving their citizens to feed their military, I don't think they would be suppling the Germans with supplies that they didn't have.

Fourthly that is exactly the point, they were terrible trained... They weren't trained at all or at least very little in defense.

And fifthly I can't comment on the fact that Stalin influenced Hitler into power because I haven't studied all the facts yet, so when I do I'll let you know.

Originally posted by MattE
Firstly if you want proof you could try a search engine, I don't know if it will work but it could.

Erm dude, you were the one making the claims, it is hardly unfair to ask you to back them up.

Originally posted by MattE
Secondly the USSR did have defenses set up but were ordered to remove them in preparation for their invasion.

Sorry man, that just doesnt make any sense.

Originally posted by MattE
Thirdly I'm not sure about the Commies sending supplies to the Germans... Just doesn't sound like something they'd do, so I'll just have to take your word for it. But the Soviets were staving their citizens to feed their military, I don't think they would be suppling the Germans with supplies that they didn't have.

Dude, it is a VERY, VERY famous historical fact (and I use the word fact deliberately here) that the Soviets were transporting supplies to Germany at the time of Barbarossa. The German forward invasion forces actually passed Russian supply trains heading into Germany going the other way!

Originally posted by MattE
Fourthly that is exactly the point, they were terrible trained... They weren't trained at all or at least very little in defense.

Man you dont seem to have got the hang of how armies train, the idea that vast armies could have been trained to perform one single action in effect is frankly ludicrous.

Originally posted by MattE
And fifthly I can't comment on the fact that Stalin influenced Hitler into power because I haven't studied all the facts yet, so when I do I'll let you know.

Well man you said and I quote..

'[i]Stalin helped to make Hitler dictator of Germany because he was using Hitler to provoke the second World War. Stalin wanted Hitler to wage war over Europe so that it would be weakened by hatred and destruction. Then he would invade as a “liberator from the Nazis” and take control of all of it, including Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. Stalin’s plot was a masterpiece; even today most people still aren’t aware about it. However, he failed in his secret attempt because Hitler found out about his plans and launched a last-resort preventive strike at the USSR in 1941.[i]'

This is not a fact, its a rather wild theory that I can be 99% sure is fictional. If you are getting the rest of your material from the same source as you got this then it would simply serve to reinforce my suspicions that you have been badly misled.

Okay I told to try a search engine because the facts I have are in a book which I can only quote. So you'll either have to take my word for it or look it up yourself. Unfair or not that's the way it is.

Here's more on the defense situation.

Concerning the frontier bridges that I mentioned earlier, for obvious reasons the Germans never proposed destroying them, even though they were never used. The moment Operation Barbarossa began, all these bridges were captured, allowing a great number of Germans to cross and destroy the unsuspecting Soviet 4th and 10th armies. The German Command hoped to use the bridges in an aggressive war, so it was clearly not in their interests to destroy them. But what was the Soviet Command hoping for?

The construction of railways was accompanied by the building of motor highways running directly to the frontier towns of Peremyshl, Brest-Litovsk, and Yavarov. When preparations are being made for a defensive war, “belt” roads are built running parallel to the front, so that troops may be moved from passive sectors to those under threat. These belt roads are built deep in the rear; the frontier regions themselves are left as far as possible without roads or bridges. But the Red Army built both railways and motor highways running from east to west, directly to the front. The construction of these lines suggests that the Soviet leadership was looking upon the frontier zone not as a battle zone but as its rear area to which, in the event of a rapid advance into the west, it would be essential to send millions of new reservists, millions of tons of ammunition, fuel, and other items of supply.

The official History of the Kiev Military District states that “at the beginning of 1941 the Nazis set about building bridges, railway branch lines, and field aerodromes.” These were clear signs that an invasion was being prepared. Yet this is what the Soviet railway troops were doing at exactly the same time.

Besides roads and rails, Number 5 on Meretskov’s List also orders the construction of airfields right next to the border. Under Lieutenant-General Rychagov, this indeed happened in June 1941. If Stalin had been anxious about defense, he should have pulled back the Soviet Air Force from the frontiers and re-based it in the depths of the country. The air force would have been quite capable of covering the frontier areas from the interior of the country, while the few hundred kilometers which lay between the airfields and the frontiers would have deprived the enemy of an ability to make a surprise attack on Soviet airfields.

In terms of defense, concentrating an air force on the frontiers is tantamount to suicide. But when an offensive is being prepared, it is absolutely essential to concentrate aircraft near the frontiers, so that they can be used over enemy territory to the full extent of their operating radius.

It must also be kept in mind that it would have been impossible to use Soviet aircraft for defense, no matter where they were located, as they were bombers, not fighters. Consider this: In December 1940, a meeting was held of the Red Army’s senior command staff to discuss the subject of war against Germany. … Zhukov’s proposal was to put the German Air Force out of action by delivering surprise attacks on German airfields, and then immediately launching powerful attacks by the land troops. Pavel Rychagov warmly supported Zhukov’s proposal. Even before Zhukov, he had recast the training of Soviet airmen in such a way that it almost totally excluded the training of pilots to fight air battles. Instead, they were trained to make sudden concentrated air strikes at enemy airfields.

In June 1941, the VChK was ordered by Lieutenant-General I. Bogdanov, the head of the NKVD troops in Byelorussia, to cut all barbed wire on the frontier with Germany. Bogdanov’s actions were undoubtedly observed by secret police chief Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria, the head of the People’s Commission of Internal Affairs (NKVD). Beria, in turn, could not have done this without Zhukov and Stalin finding out. We are assured that the Red Army suffered its first defeats because it was unprepared for war. This is nonsense. If it had not prepared for war, then the barbed wire would have been left intact [and the great number of supplies would not be stacked on the border for the Germans to take.]… The Chekists had certainly not removed the barbed wire on the frontier in order to allow the German Army to take advantage of the gaps they had opened up. The barbed wire was taken away for other purposes. Indeed, if the Soviet Union was not prepared for war, it would have been much more successful in expelling the Nazis.

Numbers 3 and 4 on Meretskov’s list (See last couple of post) are very interesting. Indeed, when Germany invaded it found a concentration of armies and resources on the frontier. In consequence, the 4th, 10th, 5th, 6th, 26th, 12th, 18th, and 9th Armies were immediately destroyed by the First German Tank Group. The rest of the First Echelon was destroyed soon afterward. What does this show? Evidence, without any possible uncertainty, that the Soviet planners were not preparing for defense at all. Otherwise, why would they stockpile supplies, fuel, boots, and ammunition directly on the border? There were piles with a total quantity of 8 million pairs of boots stacked on the border. Who were these fine boots for, the Nazis? …in 1941 the Western Front alone lost 4,216 [train] wagons carrying ammunition. Why would a defensive army need mobile ammunition? All it had to do was secure ammunition in predetermined locations that would be used should retreat be necessary. Only if the army was offensive would it need to have its ammunition follow it in the course of the invasion. Yet the “defensive” Soviet army needed thousands of trains with ammo. “At the small railway station of Kalinovka alone, the South-West Front had 1,500 wagons laden with ammunition.” In addition to ammunition, fuel was gathered in huge quantities on the border. Suvorov estimates that there were 527 thousand tons of fuel on train cisterns, which could easily be moved westward. Most of this fuel was destroyed in the first few hours of the German strike.

In the early 1930s, construction in the USSR began on a enormous defensive project: the Stalin Line. At vast expense and effort, the work continued through the years, costing about 120 billion rubles but producing an impregnable reinforced concrete fortification line. Then, as soon as Hitler began warring in Central Europe, the 1,200 kilometer long line was completely and inexplicably destroyed by explosions or taken apart for agricultural purposes on Stalin’s personal orders. Immediately, work began on another fortification: the Molotov Line. It differed from the Stalin line in that it was much weaker, cheaper, shorter, and was placed on the border for the Germans to see it. The point of this was to make the enemy conclude that you are preparing for defense only. Let Zhukov speak on the issue, “By these measures, we strove to give the enemy the impression that there was a total absence of measures of an offensive nature on our side, and to show that we were carrying out extensive works, the purpose of which was to organize defense, and only defense.” The Japanese were deceived by this strategy. They thought that Zhukov was building defense and were defeated by his surprise attack. The Germans used this strategy too. In mid-1941 the German general Guderian was building a line on the west shores of the Buug. This did not mean that he was thinking at all about defense. And if Zhukov was building exactly the same kind of fake line on the east bank of the same river, what could that mean?

The Germans themselves destroyed the Siegfried Line when it was blocking their movement of troops into France. Hitler never though that he would have to defend himself from France. One may, of course call outstanding Soviet and German generals idiots, but there was no idiocy here. They were simply aggressors. Both thought in terms of attack, and when their fortifications hindered the speed of the attack, they were either demolished to make way for the advancing troops or, if the opportunity arose, their combat casements were handed over to farmers for storing potatoes.

Stalin put millions of zeks to work digging canals from Soviet to Polish rivers. Countless thousands were killed. If Stalin was concerned about defense, he would instead force the zeks to construct anti-tank ditches and trench systems from the Black Sea to the Baltic reinforced by another fortification line even stronger than the Stalin Line. But Stalin was not concerned about defense in the least

“Mines are a powerful thing, but this is a resource for the weak, for those who are defending themselves. We do not need mines as much as we need the means of clearing them.” – Marshal of the Soviet Union Grigory Ivanovich Kulik, beginning of June 1941.

Okay I just wrote out 2 big post on the Soviets removing their defences so now I will move on.

Dude, it is a VERY, VERY famous historical fact (and I use the word fact deliberately here) that the Soviets were transporting supplies to Germany at the time of Barbarossa. The German forward invasion forces actually passed Russian supply trains heading into Germany going the other way!

Dude I can't find any evidence of this anywhere so can you please proove this.

Man you dont seem to have got the hang of how armies train, the idea that vast armies could have been trained to perform one single action in effect is frankly ludicrous.

Things have changed a lot in 60 years they definately don't train us this poorly these days (I should know I'm in the Australian Army - Almost). But back then I wouldn't put it past the Soviets.

And with the quote I said I'll talk about it when I get to it. Okay?

Thirdly I'm not sure about the Commies sending supplies to the Germans... Just doesn't sound like something they'd do, so I'll just have to take your word for it.

Accually Soviet/Nazi relations were very warm sincethe late 20s. The Germans sent most of their army, airforce their whole tank force pre-Barbarossa to train at Soviet bases.

I was busy working last night and so didnt sleep so I can muster the energy for a long post right now. As such I'll just pick you up on one comment you made


Originally posted by MattE
Hitler never though that he would have to defend himself from France.

Hitler certain did believe he could face an attack by France which was the whole reason for the western fortifications. Pre-WW2 when Hitler was still playing his games with the Czechs there was a very real danger that France who dont forget had an alliance with the Czechs would invade Germany in responce to the Germany hard-ball tactics with the Czechs. You may not be aware that not long before hitler took over the Reichs Chancellor position, France DID occcupy parts of Germany in response to a shortfall in the Versaille reperations. The shortfall incidentally was 150,000 telegraph poles. Such an incident certainly had not been forgotten by Hitler and the rest of Germany. Britain and France were known as the Great Powers for a reason, it is only with the benefit of hindsight that we see an extremely weak France.

Accually Soviet/Nazi relations were very warm sincethe late 20s. The Germans sent most of their army, airforce their whole tank force pre-Barbarossa to train at Soviet bases.

I don't deny they were 'very war' and the idea that they sent their forces to be trained in Russia just strengthens my arguement that they were well trained and not as incompitent as everyone thinks (in offense at least, not defence). However, what I'm speculating is the idea of Russia sending supplies that they didn't have or could afford to give away to Germany.

France DID occcupy parts of Germany in response to a shortfall in the Versaille reperations.

I know this. But this occupation began before or just as Germany was rebuilding their military. Germany let it go because they were worried about retaliation by the Allies. The French just retook the land Germany had taken from them during a earlier war.

thatr war being the franco-prussian war. the french took alsace-lorraine.

MattE, Im not talking about France retaking land from the Germans, Im talking about the events of January 1923 that saw the occupation of the Ruhr by French troops in response to the shortfall in reperations. It was an act of incredible stupidity by France and served only to harden resistance in Germany.

Re the Russian supplying of Germany..

http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-03.html

'It was on August 23, 1939 that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin through their representatives Ribbentrop and Molotov signed the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of friendship. It guaranteed Hitler that an invasion of Poland would not result in a war with the USSR. In fact, Stalin took the opportunity in secret provisions to ensure that the Soviet Army could occupy the territories of Galicia in the eastern part of the Polish state where over 4-4.5 million Ukrainians lived. Stalin also agreed to supply Germany with essential war supplies and did so right up until the day Germany invaded the USSR. '

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/SovietFriendship.html

'The Reich Foreign Minister to the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union (Molotov)


Moscow, September 28, 1939. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today, in which you communicate to me the following: "With reference to our conversations I have the honor to confirm herewith that the Government of the U.S.S.R. is willing on the basis and in the sense of the general political understanding reached by us, to promote by all means the trade relations and the exchange of goods between Germany and the U.S.S.R. To this end an economic program will be drawn up by both parties, under which the Soviet Union will supply raw materials to Germany, for which Germany, in turn, will make compensation through delivery of manufactured goods over an extended period. Both parties shall frame this economic program in such a manner that the German-Soviet exchange of goods will again reach the highest volume attained in the past. Both Governments will at once issue the necessary directives for the implementation of the measures mentioned and arrange that the negotiations are begun and brought to a conclusion as soon as possible." In the name and by authority of the Government of the German Reich I am in accord with this communication and inform you that the Government of the German Reich in turn will take the necessary steps for this purpose. Accept, Mr. Chairman, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration. '

There are many, many more sources on the net, being as this is such a well known agreement. If you want any more links just say the word. As I pointed out to you before when you told me to find my own proof of your claims, the onus is on the person making such claims not the person who questions them.

Thank you for providing the proof.

I know that the french took the Ruhr too it just never came to mind so sorry, but still Germany was in no state to continue the fight at that time.

Somebody said earlier in the thread that I should start a new thread on this topic to avoid 'hijacking' this one so I will, no more post about this here.

Originally posted by MrPresident
... Nazi Germany was not a direct threat to our island. ...

Nazi Germany WAS a direct threat to any human being on the planet

The Allies needed to fight it. the Axis had no good reason to get involved.

Hitler was a threat to my country. all he had to do was sign an alliance with Mexico(our neighbor to the south, who eventually entered the war on the Allies side) and he could have easily invaded the USA. Germany tried to in WW1, which is one of the reasons why we entered. Hitler was a threat to every human on Earth, but also think of the people he killed. it was a war worth fighting even if the USA was never attacked by Japan.

true, in reality pearl harbor was a gift to roosevelt because he could now overtly aid the allies and prepare his country for war in europe and the pacific.

any regime that butchers her own people needs to be disposed of
if and only if the new government will provide better life for the people and the real reason for going for war is humanitarian/the country is a threat(for example, if, lets say, the USA and Britian invade an unnamed mid-east country. although that countries despot is evil, the USA and Britian are really invading for oil contracts. and there will be a bloody civil war when they leave, which will result in a dictator as bad as the previous one. under these circumstances, war would not be acceptable).

Lets not start turning the history forum into another Bush-bashing spectacle please.

"(for example, if, lets say, the USA and Britian invade an unnamed mid-east country. although that countries despot is evil, the USA and Britian are really invading for oil contracts. and there will be a bloody civil war when they leave, which will result in a dictator as bad as the previous one. under these circumstances, war would not be acceptable)."

Sims this has no place in the History Forum. If you want to post like this, take your agenda to the off-topic forum.

yeah, this is about WW2, not some BS crap about oil in the middle east. Although the carnage of ww2 was unneccesary, I think the world needed to experience it in order to realize just what they can do to eachother, then they wouldnt want to fight such wars afterwards. WW2 was a revelation the world needed to see.

True, we haven't seen a full scale war between 2 major combatants but that evil streak in that exists in mankind will never be wiped out.

which was the thing to remember, the world needed to see WW2 so that they would make sure such a hellish disaster never happened again.

The same was presumed after WW1 however, people said 'How can people ever fight such a war again knowing the consequences?'. There will be another big war, just hopefully not for a while yet.

except versallies was a critical mistake. the end of ww2 didnt punish countries like the end of ww1 did. same general thought, but they did the opposite of that they should have done after ww1, which is what they did after WW2

The total occupation of not only the aggressor but of half the countries in Europe that went from 5-6 years of nazi oppression to 50 odd years of soviet oppression? Hardly a perfect solution dude.

but better than leaving them for dead and giving them the chance to rise up again and bring in another catastrophic war. The soviet occupation and influence crushed that. The WW1 solution was poorly executed and prroly thought of in terms of its aftermath, WW2's solution was machiavellian. This is in the context that the enemy could recover form minor injuries (WW1), but not greivous ones (WW2).

Sorry man but it was not Machiavellian. It was brutal and it was obvious, it lacked any subtle manouvering or skillful betrayal. The idea that half the countries in Europe had to live under what was a brutal and oppressive regime for half a century is just not worth avoiding a future war for. Wars are usually fought to avoid or remove oppression, the idea that so many hundreds of millions should have to suffer in this way to avoid any possibility of a third time upsurgent Germany was quite frankly foul.

It also implies incidentally that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was a planned move designed to thwart future German aggression. This is of course nonsense, it was pure expansionistic theft on the Soviets part thus proving themselves an equal to the nazi regime they toppled.

i never said i agreed with the means, i said that so far the plan has worked since a major war in europe has not happened since.

And would you say that the result justifies the cost?

so long as there is not a WW3, then yes. but if there is it is no justification as it did noy suceed in holding the peace.

Well you can pretty much write off a Fourth Reich for the foreseeable future so I suppose that counted as kind of a success. :)

Originally posted by Kentonio
Well you can pretty much write off a Fourth Reich for the foreseeable future so I suppose that counted as kind of a success. :)
The countries to Germany's east would be up in arms so quickly if Germany ever looked threatening again. This time, if Germany attacked east, I don't think France and Britain would leave the initiative in Germany's hands and wait for them to attack westwards.
Then again you never know how alliances will change over the next 50 years.

true, germany although a countrly liked in the EU is treated very well but has a gun at the back of their head ;)

yes! it was absolutely neccesary

Originally posted by Enemy Ace
Speaking from an American point of view, then, they declared war on us. We just can't have someone punch us in the mouth and not take their f***ing head off. That would be totally un-American.



Germany could also not let the US give supplies to their enemies. Like the Americans could not tolerate Russia giving missiles to Cuba.
So not a completely fair statement.

that is a true statement.

Yes, ofcourse, for the Allies. Some have even claimed it's the only just war (on humanitarian grounds) that has ever been waged (by the Allies).

Originally posted by pkmink
Yes, ofcourse, for the Allies. Some have even claimed it's the only just war (on humanitarian grounds) that has ever been waged (by the Allies).



And it ended with a just bombardment of Dresden (completely unnecesary) and two just A-bombs on Japan...

Originally posted by Tavenier


And it ended with a just bombardment of Dresden (completely unnecesary) and two just A-bombs on Japan...

Dresden was indeed completely unnecessary and immoral, even though you might argue how you would have felt in 1945, when the horrors of the death camps had been revealed...the urge to take revenge might have been overwhelming...
I don't condone it, because I think the Allies in that attack lowered themselves to the bestiality levels of the Nazi's...but that is speaking with hindsight :)

The A-bombs were probably also unnecessary, esp. the second one on Nagasaki (the Japanese already wanted to surrender after Hiroshima)..

However, looking at it on a grand scale: liberating occupied Europe and Asia from a brutal, totalitarian system which was in the process of exterminating a whole race, don't you think it can be qualified overall as a just war?

Pat

Originally posted by pkmink


Dresden was indeed completely unnecessary and immoral, even though you might argue how you would have felt in 1945, when the horrors of the death camps had been revealed...the urge to take revenge might have been overwhelming...
I don't condone it, because I think the Allies in that attack lowered themselves to the bestiality levels of the Nazi's...but that is speaking with hindsight :)

The A-bombs were probably also unnecessary, esp. the second one on Nagasaki (the Japanese already wanted to surrender after Hiroshima)..

However, looking at it on a grand scale: liberating occupied Europe and Asia from a brutal, totalitarian system which was in the process of exterminating a whole race, don't you think it can be qualified overall as a just war?

Pat



Overall it was a just war. But the terms (unconditional surrender) was IMO wrong. It all turned out right, but with the SU and the USA it could well have been a 3rd WW, with probably a quarter of the world death. Why not agree with Japan just to remove the Emperor? Why not help the German officers assasinate Hitler and bring about a more peaceful government?
I think the US knew it would be a world power afterwards, with Britain losing its colonies, Japan and Germany kaputt, France losing colonies, China in civil war and only the SU remaining.

Originally posted by Tavenier

Overall it was a just war. But the terms (unconditional surrender) was IMO wrong. It all turned out right, but with the SU and the USA it could well have been a 3rd WW, with probably a quarter of the world death. Why not agree with Japan just to remove the Emperor? Why not help the German officers assasinate Hitler and bring about a more peaceful government?
I think the US knew it would be a world power afterwards, with Britain losing its colonies, Japan and Germany kaputt, France losing colonies, China in civil war and only the SU remaining.
1. What conditions would you have accepted from Hitler or Donitz being the Allies? I can't think of any realistically, except the standard Geneva Concention conditions for the treatment of POW's and an occupied country which were implemented by the Western Allies after the German surrender. When Stauffenberg tried to assassinate Hitler in the summer of 1944 millions of Jews had already been gassed plus countless other victims of the Nazi's killed and Germany had started the war in the first place by invading Poland! So even in the summer of 1944, the Allies had every right and moral obligation to demand unconditional surrender given the nature of what had happened.

2. With Japan, I'm not sure if removing the Emperor would have been enough or even possible, given the god-like status that he had with the Japanese.

Originally posted by pkmink

1. What conditions would you have accepted from Hitler or Donitz being the Allies? I can't think of any realistically, except the standard Geneva Concention conditions for the treatment of POW's and an occupied country which were implemented by the Western Allies after the German surrender. When Stauffenberg tried to assassinate Hitler in the summer of 1944 millions of Jews had already been gassed plus countless other victims of the Nazi's killed and Germany had started the war in the first place by invading Poland! So even in the summer of 1944, the Allies had every right and moral obligation to demand unconditional surrender given the nature of what had happened.

2. With Japan, I'm not sure if removing the Emperor would have been enough or even possible, given the god-like status that he had with the Japanese.



1) Everything is better then the chance of a nucleaur 3rd war. And most Jews were killed in the last stage of the war. And I think it cost more lives of Russians because the war lasted long then the cost of Jewish lives. In total more then 20 million vs almost 6 million.

2) I believe it was offered by Japanese officers. But I am not sure how it was exactly.

At the risk of repeating an earlier comment I made in another thread:

In an excellent book on alternative histories I read, the US government's own estimates of casualties in invading just the southernmost Island of Japan were as follows:

Japanese Army Dead: 250,000
Japanese Civilian Dead: 380,000
American forces Casualties: Between 140,000 and 500,000*

It was also assumed that the fire-bombing of Japan would continue, expanding to other cities, this caused in tokyo more deaths than both atom bombs combined. Bombing of rail facilities was also likely, something that would starve the population due to the nature of Japan's food supplies. Russia it was assumed would leap onto Japan's northern Island and maybe further, forcing the split of the country aka Germany.

About the Japanese surrender: From what I have read, 8 people held real power in Japan, the 6 cabinet members, the Emporer and the keeper of the privy seal (Emporer's closest advisor). Documents show that on August 9th, this group was still split, the big six of the cabinet split into 3 for ending the war, but with the imperial system remaining, the remaining 3 added three further conditions:

Right to repatirate armed forces
War crimes conducted by Japan, not the allies
No allied occupation.

The nature of the system I believe meant only on a majority could action be taken, so none was. Prior to the bombs the big six (and the remaining two largely took their lead) assumed that the casualties they could inflict on the allies in any invasion (ie above stats) would persuade the allies to sue for peace.
So put simply, the A-bombs were the course of least casualties, and also the quickest way strangely of rebuilding Japan.

* Japanese figures based around the example of Okinawa and do not include wounded. American figures vary depending on whether you take the pacific (higher figure) or european (lower) for the sample to base the casualties on. It's to be noted both figures were based on a 90 day campaign, during which it's unlikely any more than 1/2 of the southern Island would fall.

The figures I mentioned came direct from a Joint Chiefs planning paper, which studied casualties during the Pacific campaigns in terms of numbers lost per day per thousand troops committed. Once these were known, and the projected plan of numbers of troops was known it is a simple task to determine the number of casualties for a 90 day campaign. This campaign would (it was predicted by the paper) see the fall of only 1/2 of the southern island of Japan.

A similar study was done of the casualties in the protracted European campaign, the figures of losses per day were drastically lower, the troops involved higher. One comparison was for every 1000 troops committed in the battle, in europe 0.36 people would die every day, in the pacific 1.78 every day. Many in the allied camp were totally against an invasion having seen this and similar studies (King and Nimitz being two examples)

That's on the possibilities facing the US before dropping the bomb. Not the Emporer (who's power was not that much in comparison) nor the cabinet were showing effective reasoning towards suing for peace. There is hints that perhaps the Emporer sent a represenative to Russia to sue for peace, but why they felt this would succeed is anyone's guess. Russia was grabbing land from Japanese held Manchuria at the time, she'd hardly be driven to end the war quickly, nor did the allies sign seperate peace deals. Any serious attempt should have gone to the US/UK governments also. Japan was also drawing up plans for the last ditch defense of the country that would have seen heavy losses amongst everyone.

Dresden I do agree was unessecary, but war is hell I guess. A shame but not anything to turn back the justice of the overall cause. Nagasaki I do think was unessecary, but on the above I consider Hiroshima to have been vital in forcing Japan to finally realise the futility of continuing the war. The assasination idea I imagine was not attempted for worries on whom would take control after the event or what the likes of the SS and co would do in their last moments of power. There was also at stake the notion that Stauffenberg and his conspirators were happy to let the likes of Himmler flee to neutrality in the event of sucess in order to mollify them.

As for the notion of unconditional surrender... well I believe it was vital because it prevented the alliance against the axis powers from coming to blows over the terms agreed on. Russia for one would be unlikely to accept conditions imposed by Germany given the hatred between the two. I certainly don't agree that conditional surrender would have prevented the cold war or stopped a 3rd world war as I tend to think that however the war was ended in 1944-45 the world would end with the US and USSR being the big two and in a state of animosity.

Originally posted by Tavenier


1) Everything is better then the chance of a nucleaur 3rd war. And most Jews were killed in the last stage of the war. And I think it cost more lives of Russians because the war lasted long then the cost of Jewish lives. In total more then 20 million vs almost 6 million.
(..snip..)

I don't follow how the unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945 or 1944 could increase the chance of nuclear war. The Soviets didn't have their first A-bomb until 1949.

Ok, let's suppose Hitler was killed by Stauffenberg in 1944, and the new leaders want a conditional surrender to the Allies. What kind of conditions could the Germans possibly have demanded at that stage? And which ones could have been acceptable for the Allies?

none.

BTW, it was 13 million in the holocaust total to 55 million russians.

Originally posted by Sarevok
none.

BTW, it was 13 million in the holocaust total to 55 million russians.

Total dead in the whole of WW2 (all fronts, all nationalities) was 55 million. Russians roughly 20 million dead.

your sources are pre-1991.

Originally posted by Sarevok
your sources are pre-1991.



55 million? Where did you get that figure? I could imagine it was more then 20 million (fighting, Jews, starvation, cold), but 55 million? Do you realize that was almost half of the population of all of the SU? Well, about 45%! That includes all 'Russians' in Siberia and Kamsjatka, for example.

Originally posted by Sarevok
your sources are pre-1991.
Yes, my information was based on my highschool days and university, which use mostly pre-1991 data, but I checked an internet site which has made a nice list of all the different studies (pre- and post-1991) into WW2 deaths, the numbers vary dramatically. Most studies give between 20 and 27 million, only 1 gives 49 million (the highest estimate) and another 40 million for Russian dead.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm

Originally posted by pkmink

I don't follow how the unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945 or 1944 could increase the chance of nuclear war. The Soviets didn't have their first A-bomb until 1949.

Ok, let's suppose Hitler was killed by Stauffenberg in 1944, and the new leaders want a conditional surrender to the Allies. What kind of conditions could the Germans possibly have demanded at that stage? And which ones could have been acceptable for the Allies?



There would have been more world powers, instead of two. But it all could have been completely different too. It is just a thought, not my rockhard opinion, or something.

Imagine if Japan would have made peace much earlier. Then there would have been a big chance that China would have eventually be led by Chan Kai Chek, instead of Mao. I hope I don't need to explain why. If it would for someone, then that someone doesn't know enough to argue this fact anyway! :crazyeye:

And with Germany an earlier peace would have meant that Eastern Europe would not have been occupied by the Red Army. Britain could attend its colonies again, just like Holland and France, thus delaying the process of decolonisation. Britain would probably be more powerful at the end of the war then it was in real history. American war-industry would not have been so booming for so long. All this could lead to the conclusion that there would have been more powers, instead of just two. Keep in mind that a lot of German scientists (like Werner von Braun) would then not have been in the USA or SU.

Originally posted by pkmink

Yes, my information was based on my highschool days and university, which use mostly pre-1991 data, but I checked an internet site which has made a nice list of all the different studies (pre- and post-1991) into WW2 deaths, the numbers vary dramatically. Most studies give between 20 and 27 million, only 1 gives 49