Decisions of Barbarossa

[Lord Baal]

Uh, well, you'd have to get rid of Hitler to do that. And if you get rid of Hitler, where are you getting the rearmament from?

The previous German government was already putting feelers out for rearmament. It would probably have happened even without Hitler, though he was definitely the driving force behind rearmament. In fact, if rearmament had been pursued more slowly the German economy would have been in a better position than the too-rapid expansion under Hitler.

 

[Dachs]

I dunno, I don't see a German government just going "let's rearm guys!", buying up weapons and amping up the size of the army, and then...just sitting there churning out consumer goods like good little peaceful people, and doing nothing with the rearmed military. Or any government, for that matter. Even Mussolini's Italy engaged in military adventurism with its brand new military.

 

[Lord Baal]

I dunno, I don't see a German government just going "let's rearm guys!", buying up weapons and amping up the size of the army, and then...just sitting there churning out consumer goods like good little peaceful people, and doing nothing with the rearmed military. Or any government, for that matter. Even Mussolini's Italy engaged in military adventurism with its brand new military.

It certainly depends on who is in charge. But a corporative model would have naturally led to rearmament being slowed and production shifted to consumer goods in a few years anyway. In fact, numerous German corporations who initially favoured rearmament reversed their position in 1935-36 as continued rearmament was actually hurting both them and the overall national economy. It seems that all Hitler would have had to do was listen to them and scale back rearmament at that point. It had served its purpose - massive deficit-spending - and no longer had any real use.

 

[arya126]

Sigh. Why else would all defensive positions like the stalin line be disarmed unmanned, and dismantled? Why would almost the entire soviets air force be stationed on the border where it was vulnerable to attacks (like the luftwaffe did), but ready to support an attack? Why was the entire army on the western front (besides troops here and there, and in karelia) on the border? Why were troops massed in romania? Why was infra in the south geared towards moving troops towards the front? Stalin was going to attack the axis.

Whjether it has been 'proven', well it cant until we get to see the official soviet records, and i doubt it will even include this if it existed. Ill explain this more later.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Also, much (read: Everything after Korfu and Abyssinia) of Italian adventurism was in direct responce to German Agression, with the Italians hoping to keep apace.

 

[Masada]

I would be most interested to see what Cheezy has to say: if I remember correctly he places a Soviet invasion later.

Sigh. Why else would all defensive positions like the stalin line be disarmed unmanned, and dismantled?

... it was superseded by the Molotov Line.

Why would almost the entire soviets air force be stationed on the border where it was vulnerable to attacks (like the luftwaffe did), but ready to support an attack?

Or it was in forward positions to defend the frontier.

Why was the entire army on the western front (besides troops here and there, and in karelia) on the border?

Where else was it going to be?

Why were troops massed in romania?

Its on the border?

Why was infra in the south geared towards moving troops towards the front? Stalin was going to attack the axis.

A forward defence?

Whjether it has been 'proven', well it cant until we get to see the official soviet records, and i doubt it will even include this if it existed. Ill explain this more later.

So it can't be proven in our favour because we don't have access to the Soviet records. But it can be proven in your favour without them. This is quite apart from the fact that it would be a major feather in the Russian we-did-not-collaborate-with-the-Nazis-for-any-other-purpose-than-to-buy-time-to-prepare-for-war hat. So I'll venture to guess that we probably already know the answer.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Also, you know...the Soviet Archives have been open for years now.

 

[arya126]

Not all the records from the soviet archives are open though. Plus, whatever information is there is probably false if it was during stalin's time. Nothing on paper then was as it was in RL. For example, tank factories were required to meet an unrealistic standard, or stalin kills somebody. So on paper that number was reached. But in RL much fewer tanks were actually produced. And anyone that told stalin otherwise would be shot on account of bringing bad news. So records from then generally cant be trusted, especially plans/casualties/numbers.

Comments on masada-

1. The molotov line wasnt even near completion. In fact, i wouldnt even consider it a line.

2. Forward positions to defend the frontier? That doesnt make sense. That put it right in the reach of the luftwaffe. Put it a bit farther back, and the airfields would be out of their reach, like the RAF did in the battle of britain. The only logical reason for it to be so close to the border is that the soviets were planning an attack, and the planes were needed to support attacks across the border.

3. Maybe a little farther back so it would know if the germans were invading before it was attacked? It was literally within 10 miles of the border.

4. That doesnt make sense. Why prioritize romania? There was the whole german border to consider. Why were so many troops down south? There were 3 armies there. Thats alot for a small border.

5. If it was a forward defence why wasnt the infra built up along the WHOLE border?

6. No it cant be proven in anyones favor. Unless you can time travel back in time and convince stalin to tell you what he was planning, i doubt it will be solved for a long time.

Whos cheezy?

 

[Lord Baal]

CheezytheWiz and I have discussed this subject several times, and we both agree on an invasion in 1944 at the earliest. This is based on Russian documents which state that Russia needed to launch a pre-emptive strike on Germany in 1944 because that's when they thought the Germans were coming. Among other things.

This has been conclusively proven (the documents in question include ones intended for Stalin's reading) on more than one occasion arya126. Cheezy would know the names of the authors in question - I'm terrible with author's names unless they're physically sitting on my bookshelves; better yet, check out Wiki, since I don't know when Cheezy will be online.

 

[arya126]

The key word there is intended. Stalin might not have seen them, or he might even have dismissed it. He basicly lived in his own fantasy world up until midway through the war, where he could have possibly believed what he said in his speeches about limitless manpower and resources and such. He could very well have believed that his forces were ready to attack in 41 even if they werent. Plus, the red army officers that the germans captured during the invasion and interrogated, told them that stalin was indeed planning to launch an attack at the first opportune moment.

 

[Justo]

The Soviet forces were on the border partly as a political show to Germany. The thought being that the Germans wouldn't dare attack with 2.8 million Soviet soldiers right on the border while Britain is still in the war.

It's much the same reason why Hitler tried to keep as many German soldiers on the Eastern theatre even before invading the Soviet. It was ultimately a political/diplomatic game.

Larger numbers on the Romanian border could be quite easily explained by how the Soviets had taken Romanian Eastern Territories. These lands were newly integrated and a show of force would be needed (in Stalins mind at least) to ensure that the citizens don't get uppity. Keeping a strong force in the region also keeps open the option of gaining more land from Romania. It also acts as a deterrent in keeping Romania from trying to retake the region(not that it stopped them ).

 

[Cull]

Wait, so since Stalin was a nutcase he couldn't accurately measure his armed forces? Of course he couldn't. That wouldn't make sense for any would be dictator that lasted that long to be able to know his own forces. No...

There needs to be more proof.

 

[arya126]

Wait, so since Stalin was a nutcase he couldn't accurately measure his armed forces? Of course he couldn't. That wouldn't make sense for any would be dictator that lasted that long to be able to know his own forces. No...

There needs to be more proof.

I never said it was because stalin was a nutcase, which in many senses he wasnt. Paranoid, yes. Cautious, yes. Politician at heart, yes. Nutcase? No. Not really at least.

If someone brought him bad news, they were shot. If somebody didnt meet the task theyw ere given, they were shot. If someone so much as said the wrong thing to stalin, they were shot. And since stalin gave the factories unreasonable numbers to produce, they numbers were met. On paper anyway. In actuality it was only a fraction of it. Supposedly all the tank divisions were armed with the T-41 tank series, along with some KVs as well. But in reality only a fraction of the tank divisions had any T series tanks, most were still BTs.

Another example of this was in ammunition, and in plain guns. In the months leading up to barbarossa, several corps in the kiev area were told that they had to arm themselves, because all available arms were going to the north to arm the troops invading finalnd and the baltics. Other times divisions were armed with a mix of polish/german/russian rifles, but no ammunition for them.

So you can see the problem? On paper, there was a well supplied fighting force. But in actuality nothing was as it was on paper. During the latter parts of '41, people were drafted into the army, given 2 days training, and put in a uniform and sent into battle. but only the first wave was given any rifles or ammunition. the rest were told to pick up the rifles of the dead. And stalin had no idea because anyone who told him anything bad was shot.

 

[Masada]

1. The molotov line wasnt even near completion. In fact, i wouldnt even consider it a line.

How does that preclude it from being a replacement for the Stalin Line?

2. Forward positions to defend the frontier? That doesnt make sense. That put it right in the reach of the luftwaffe. Put it a bit farther back, and the airfields would be out of their reach, like the RAF did in the battle of britain. The only logical reason for it to be so close to the border is that the soviets were planning an attack, and the planes were needed to support attacks across the border.

Yes, it does. The Soviets had positions right on the frontier, leaving them without the benefit of air support in the advent of an invasion would have been as disastrous as what actually happened. It was unfortunate that the Soviet air-force was caught with its pants down, it wasn't inevitable.

3. Maybe a little farther back so it would know if the germans were invading before it was attacked? It was literally within 10 miles of the border.

The Germans also had positions right up at the border as well.

4. That doesnt make sense. Why prioritize romania? There was the whole german border to consider. Why were so many troops down south? There were 3 armies there. Thats alot for a small border.

I'm not going to try to argue out of silence. If you can prove this was Stalin's intention then please do. Its equally possible that in the event of a German attack he simply intended to counter-attack in Romania a far easier target.

5. If it was a forward defence why wasnt the infra built up along the WHOLE border?

What do you think a forward defence calls for?

6. No it cant be proven in anyones favor. Unless you can time travel back in time and convince stalin to tell you what he was planning, i doubt it will be solved for a long time.

So you can prove it but we can't.

Stalin basicly lived in his own fantasy world up until midway through the war, where he could have possibly believed what he said in his speeches about limitless manpower and resources and such.

And Churchill talked about fighting on beaches that were never ever going to be invaded. Yet nobody talks about Churchill living in a fantasy world. It was politics get over it.

He could very well have believed that his forces were ready to attack in 41 even if they werent. Plus, the red army officers that the germans captured during the invasion and interrogated, told them that stalin was indeed planning to launch an attack at the first opportune moment.

Opportune being what?

 

[Lord Baal]

The Soviet air force was no more humiliated by Barbarossa than the US forces in Philippines were on December 8th. Less so, considering they hadn't received any of the intelligence about an attack, whereas MacArthur was personally warned of a coming attack by Secretary of State Hull himself. Yet no-one claims they were in the Philippines to plan for a pre-emptive strike against Japan. The argument that the Soviets were preparing a pre-emptive strike on Germany, when they were in no position to do so, is equally as ridiculous. Especially as the documents exist which conclusively prove that such a strike was at least three years away, whereas no similar documentation exists regarding US plans. After all, FDR left even less paperwork than Stalin.

All Stalin was doing was playing a big game of bluff with the German military. He posted troops on the border to make them think he had more behind them. THis is a pretty classic strategy. If you have few troops, always keep those you have on patrol; make them as visible as possible so the enemy thinks there are considerably more than there really are. The Germans were doing the exact same thing on their side of the border.

As for stationing the bulk of his troops along the Romanian border, Masada is absolutely right. Many of those troops were there to control the recalcitrant new Moldavian province recently extorted from Romania, while others were there to act as a deterrant to Germany and Romania. After all, the vast majority of Germany's oil that did not come from the USSR came from Romania. If Germany attacked the USSR, a quick counterstrike at Romania would all-but eliminate Germany's oil supplies. This is why Hitler ordered Crete to be invaded rather than Malta; British planes in Crete could conceivably have bombed the oilfields in Romania, even though Malta was far more strategically valuable.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The Soviet air force was no more humiliated by Barbarossa than the US forces in Philippines were on December 8th.

So...Entirely and Utterly?

 

[Lord Baal]

So...Entirely and Utterly?

Well played, good sir. Well played.

Seriously, the Soviet air force was pretty much destroyed, but at least they could blame it on bad intel and supplies. MacArthur actually had the opportunity to wipe out the Japanese air force in Formosa before it could attack him. He just didn't, since that would, you know, be something a competent military leader might do. As such, it was well beyond his capabilities.

 

[arya126]

Actually the red air force can blame it on stalin, as he had notification of the impending attack from spies inside germany, but he refused to believe they would attack. And he placed the entire red air force right on the border so it would be vulnerable to a suprise strike on the air fields, instead of in air fields farther back out of range of germany's short range bombers.

Since it cant be PROVEN EITHER WAY (masada kept saying how i said it could only be proved my way, but not your way, even though i kept saying it couldnt be proven either way) i really dont feel like going at the comments again. Keeping this up and making no headway just makes people tired.

I wont comment on macarthur since i know little of that part of the war.

 

[Lord Baal]

Actually arya126, ity not only CAN be proven "my" way, but HAS. The only legitimate authority I know who claims that such an invasion would have taken place is Mikhail Ivanovich Meltyukhov, but his theory is considered incorrect by most other historians, and even he agrees that all Soviet wargames at the time assumed an attack from the West (ie. Germany) followed by a Soviet counterattack.

 

[arya126]

Do you have PROOF that stalin was not planning to attack the axis in late '41? No. I dont mean documents or actions that 'imply' that he wasnt. I mean hard proof. Now as stalin did not leave a diary or anything of the sort, i doubt we will ever know. But in order to prove something you need hard evidence, not actions or facts that imply something.