From what point was Germany doomed during WWII?

[red_elk]

While I don't think it was a different story, the scale was a bit different. Maybe that has to do with population sizes, I don't know. But Poland was a brutal place to be in during WWII regardless of whose troops were where you were.

Scale was different, it's impossible to deny this. As for brutal place, for local civilians (almost all of them were Slavs or Jews), being in Soviet territory they had much more chances to survive than if they fall into Nazi hands. Though in 1939 not all of them, especially Poles, knew that.

 

[Domen]

Red Elk,

You claim that the Soviet invasion in 1939 was aimed at protecting Belarusians and Ukrainians from the Nazis...

However, this contradicts the fact that the Soviet invasion of Poland was conducted in cooperation and after previous agreement with the same Nazis! The partition of Poland was agreed by Soviets and Nazis yet on 23 August of 1939 and later conducted according to that previous plan. This resembles the situation when for example I sign an agreement and a "non-aggression pact" with some murderer, and I later claim that my action was aimed at protecting his victim...

Moreover - Soviet propaganda movies from 1939 (some of them can be seen on You Tube) claim something completely different...

They claim that their "liberation march" is aimed at protecting locals from Polish officers and Polish "magnates" (!) - not from Nazi Germany...

Soviets also claimed protecting Polish people (!) from their own rulers / officers...

And actually Soviet "Pravda" ("The Truth") newspaper claimed that the Red Army was fighting against "Polish Fascists" (sic!) in Grodno.

I already mentioned before that one company of those "Polish Fascists" had 50% soldiers of Belarusian nationality...

================================================

The joint Soviet-German military parade in Brest-Litovsk on 22.09.1939 and other open acts of friendship and cooperation between the Soviets and the Germans in 1939 (including even direct cooperation on the battlefield against Polish forces in several battles) also contradict your statement.

What was taking place after the campaign - when for example both sides exchanged POWs between themselves, etc. - also contradicts this.

Plus the fact that Germany and Soviet Union remained friendly for the next 2 years and the USSR was providing supplies to Germany.

=================================================

Tell me if this Russian newsreel from 1939 says anything about "protecting someone from Nazi Germany"?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYXFcoZJDug

And here some discussion about the joint German-Soviet parade in Brest-Litovsk:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=76721&start=75

Soviet and German soldiers on joint guard duty in Poland, September 1939:

Generals Guderian (in the center) and Krivoshein (on the right) in Brest-Litovsk on 22.09.1939:

Fragment of interview with general Krivoshein (interview by editor W. Kubicki from 01.10.1989) - Krivoshein speaks:

"In 1939 I was the commander of 29th Brigade of Light Tanks. I was standing near the warszawska road in the town Staryje Dorogi between Sluck and Bobrujsk. In September, when there was the decision on Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, together with the Corps of Jeromienko [6th Cavalry Corps] we entered Poland. I received an order to march towards Baranowicze as part of 4th Army of general Czujkow.

We entered Baranowicze and captured several thousand Poles there, who were just getting out of railway transports. We went further towards the west and then, behind Pruzana, 12 German officers were brought to me. They were saying that they were from Guderian, who was marching towards Brzesc. I ordered them to convey my best greetings to Guderian. Then I received an order to enter Brest. With 242 tanks we started to advance towards Brest, but not directly but from the north, because I thought, that Germans were fighting east of Brest. On the northern outskirts of Brest we met a German leutnant. Through an interpreter I told him that "I am general Krivoshein and I am the commander of several hundred tanks". The German leutnant started to shout that we should withdraw (...) When we reached Brest, I discovered that German soldiers were plundering the city (...) In the center of the Voivodeship Office building there was the headquarters of Guderian (...)

Commandant of the city went to report to Guderian about my arrival, and I was waiting for around ten minutes in the room with beautiful portraits of Polish hetmans (...) Suddenly a group of German officers appeared, among them there was a small, dry general. He stopped three steps from me and announced, that he welcomes general Krivoshein as the representative of the Red Army, mighty, great, etc. (...) Guderian suggested to organize a military parade, joint military parade of course... I refused because we were tired and dusted after the long march (...) But in the end I agreed to give my military orchestra and one battalion for this joint military parade. Guderian also reminded of, that we should stay together at one tribune. And it was so. We were welcoming this military parade together."

Some more photos:

Spoiler :

German and Soviet soldiers observing the parade together:

Somehwere in Poland - two German soldiers posing for a photo with one Soviet soldier:

Flowers for Soviet friends:

 

[red_elk]

Red Elk,
You claim that the Soviet invasion in 1939 was aimed at protecting Belarusians and Ukrainians from the Nazis...

Yes, that was one of the goals.

However, this contradicts the fact that the Soviet invasion of Poland was conducted in cooperation and after previous agreement with the same Nazis!

There was no military cooperation with Nazis, except broadcast of Minsk radiostation, which was used by German air forces.
The only military operation where Soviet and Nazi troops were close to each other was capturing of Lvov, and ended up with fighting between them.

The partition of Poland was agreed by Soviets and Nazis yet on 23 August of 1939 and later conducted according to that previous plan.

The secret protocol did not contain any military plans or agreements. It was about spheres of influence - Germans in 23.08. were not even sure that they will attack Poland, the same scenario as it was with Czechoslovakia in 1938 was still possible. What Germans wanted (in case of war with Poland) is to secure their Eastern border from attack from Soviet side. And USSR wanted to reunite Soviet Belorussia and Ukraine with Western territories, lost to Poland in 1920.

Moreover - Soviet propaganda movies from 1939 (some of them can be seen on You Tube) claim something completely different...
They claim that their "liberation march" is aimed at protecting locals from Polish officers and Polish "magnates" (!) - not from Nazi Germany...
Soviets also claimed protecting Polish people (!) from their own rulers / officers...
And actually Soviet "Pravda" ("The Truth") newspaper claimed that the Red Army was fighting against "Polish Fascists" (sic!) in Grodno.

Propaganda was addressed to local peasants that they will be freed from rule of Polish lords - which was true. And also explaining to Soviet soldiers the reason of operation. Of course not all of the reasons could be expressed openly in mass media.

I already mentioned before that one company of those "Polish Fascists" had 50% soldiers of Belarusian nationality...

Fascists can be of any nationality.

And since you like to post military photos, I'll add some more - with Nazi and Polish officers in Czechoslovakia.

 

[Domen]

Yes, that was one of the goals.

And the other goals were... ?

I'll add some more - with Nazi and Polish officers in Czechoslovakia.

This is not Czechoslovakia but Aleje Ujazdowskie in Warsaw. And this is a pre-war photo.

Fascists can be of any nationality.

You did not understand.

They refered to ALL defenders of Grodno as "Polish Fascists".

Besides - there was no any fascicst party existing in Poland before WW2.

the same scenario as it was with Czechoslovakia in 1938 was still possible.

No. Poland made it completely clear that it would not accept Nazi demands yet in March of 1939.

And after that Hitler didn't even try to persuade Poland to accept his demands any more.

Germans in 23.08. were not even sure that they will attack Poland,

They were perfectly sure already for several months.

Yet in March 1939 Hitler issued verbal outlines to his generals saying that Poland had to be invaded by the end of August.

Keitel's directive designating the date of the invasion of Poland as "no later than 01.09.1939" was issued yet on 03.04.1939.

This Keitlel's directive was later signatured by Adolf Hitler on 11.04.1939.

It can be found in documents used during the Nuremberg Trials ("Weisung fur die einheitliche Kriegsvorbereitung der Wehrmacht", Nuremberg 1949).

On 15.06.1939 the German operational plan of the invasion ("Fall Weiss") was already fully finished.

The secret protocol did not contain any military plans or agreements.

Yaaaa really... So what the hell is Article II of that protocol, especially quoted fragments:

And also that fragment from Article I which says that they wanted to give Wilno to Lithuania after taking it from Poland:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html

"Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state (...) The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish State and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments." ///// "In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party."

They discussed whether to maintain independent Poland (and if so - with what borders) after defeating it or to dissolve it completely.

This is not what countries do when they have "no any military plans".

And it is probably just a coincidence that all countries and regions mentioned in the protocol (so eastern part of Poland, Baltic States, Finland and Besarabia) were later invaded or occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union...

Propaganda was addressed to local peasants that they will be freed from rule of Polish lords - which was true.

There was no something like "Polish lords" in 20th century.

And BTW most of noble families from that region originated from Ruthenian Boyars and only later underwent Polonization.

And also explaining to Soviet soldiers the reason of operation.

Most of Soviet soldiers did not know what was the reason of that operation:

Colonel Adam Epler (commander of Infantry Division "Kobryn") wrote about Soviet soldiers captured in the battle of Milanow:

“During investigation prisoners said that before they went on war to Poland, they had been told that they were going on military exercises. When they passed the Polish border, they were told, that they must go on war with the Nazis. Only one day before the Soviet attack at Milanów, they were informed by their commanders, that they: “are here to participate in the action against reactionary, bourgeois bands of Polish officers”.”

And USSR wanted to reunite Soviet Belorussia and Ukraine with Western territories, lost to Poland in 1920.

The USSR did not loose any territories to Poland in 1920 and it was already discussed.

There was no military cooperation with Nazis, except broadcast of Minsk radiostation, which was used by German air forces.

Except for that radio station there was military cooperation in several battles (the largest of them being Tomaszow).

Germans requested for Soviet help in combats against Polish units which were disturbing their withdrawal behind the demarcation line:

In point No 3 h) of the order of OKW from 21.09.1939, 8.00 PM, we can read:

"Russians have offered us an armed help against Polish regular forces and insurgents"

Source: National Archives of USA. T. 319. Roll 477. frame 8067998-999

Paragraph 5. of the "Top-secret protocol of establishments between people's komissar of defence of the USSR and representatives of the German High Command" (protocol created between 16:20 on 20 IX and 4:00 on 21 IX):

"If German representatives are asking the Red Army command for help in destroying Polish military units or bands [...], Red Army command (leaders of marching columns) in accordance to the need, will give at the disposal [of the Germans], forces necessary to destroy obstacles located along the route of German units."

The protocol was signed from the German side by: Generalleutnant Kostring, Oberst Aschenbrenner, Oberstleutnant in General Headquarters Krebs. From the Soviet side it was signed by Kliment Voroshilov and Boris Shaposhnikov.

Also Russian historian Natalia Lebiedieva in her article which was published in "Nova Gazieta" wrote:

"I'm going to recall one of examples of aid given to units of Wehrmacht by the Red Army. On 23 September Soviet command received information, that in the area west from Hrubieszow major Polish forces [forces of Front Polnocny] were gathering. Germans wanted to attack them with tanks [2. Pz.Div.]. 'They [Germans] propose us - the commander of Russian division, Ivanov, reported - to take part in joint annihilation of that group'. As the result [of this proposal] the Soviet 8th Rifle Corps was directed towards Hrubieszow, where it started to fight against Polish units."

(...)

More for example here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=58157&p=1429885&hilit=Krasnobrod#p1429885

And USSR wanted to reunite Soviet Belorussia and Ukraine with Western territories

The USSR always wanted to "reunite" something - Finland, Baltic states, Georgia, Poland...

What Germans wanted (in case of war with Poland) is to secure their Eastern border from attack from Soviet side.

LOL and ROTFL.

And that's why they "invited" the Soviets to capture eastern Poland and to have common border with them?

And Germans not only invited the Soviets to invade on 23 August but also repeatedly pushed them to invade as quickly as possible yet during September.

 

[Domen]

The only military operation where Soviet and Nazi troops were close to each other was capturing of Lvov, and ended up with fighting between them.

By "fighting" you mean that friendly fire incident when 3 - 5 soldiers on both sides were killed or wounded ???

And it was actually not "capturing of Lwow" because Lwow was not captured. It surrendered to the Soviet army.

But it is true that on 20.09.1939 there were some quite harsh German-Soviet negotiations over Lwow because Germans were not willing to give that city to the Soviets (despite the fact that it was in Soviet sphere of interests in the R-M Pact). On 20.09.1939 at 20:00 gen. Bayer sent an ultimatum to Polish commander gen. Langner (he demanded capitulation until 10:00 AM on 21.09.1939, otherwise he would launch a full-scale assault at 11:00). On the same day Gen. Feurstein and Soviet kombrig Yakovlev met in Winniki. Germans demanded that Russians shouldn't "disturb them in encircling Lwow"* before the planned attack; while Russians demanded that Germans should stop firing at the city, withdraw 15 - 20 kms to the west from Lwow and leave the city to them.

*While actually they helped them in encircling Lwow, because before Soviet forces approached Lwow, it was not encircled.

Russians also planned their own assault on Lwow - on 21.09.1939 at 12:00 (one hour after the planned German assault). The planned German attack didn't start (on 20.09.1939 Army Group "North" received an order from OKH to stop the siege of Lwow). The Russian attack also didn't take place - from two reasons: First - on 21 IX in the morning Polish-Soviet negotiations started - they were initiated by Soviets, who lied to Poles that they were coming to fight against Germans** Second - forces of the Russian 6th Army were not concentrated yet and not ready to attack.

**Russian commander - who was de facto commander of one brigade - introduced himself to the Poles as commander of entire Armoured Corps.

On 21.09.1939 Germans once again asked Lwow to surrender, but the city refused:

From W. Włodarkiewicz's "Lwów 1939", page 185:

"On 21.09.1939, despite the fact that German units had already started withdrawal from their positions near Lwow, delayed by the necessity of evacuation of wounded, a German messenger arrived at Grojecka street and once again proposed the capitulation of the city. In recognition of stubborn defense of the city, German side offered to salute the defenders and to allow Polish officers to retain their side arms. The German messenger declared, that the capitulation of the Polish crew to the Germans means remaining in Europe, while the capitulation to the Red Army would mean passing through to Asia forever. It seems that it was a question of prestige for the Germans to capture the city - which had been vainly besieged by their forces since 12.09.1939 - at least for a while."

One day later - on 22.09.1939 - the city surrendered to the Soviets (Poles agree to surrender to the Soviets provided that the Soviets would release all POWs - but the Soviets violated that agreement and did not release officers, only NCOs and enlisted men).


.

 

[red_elk]

You did not understand.
They refered to ALL defenders of Grodno as "Polish Fascists".
Besides - there was no any fascicst party existing in Poland before WW2.

They referred to forces, loyal to Polish government as "Polish fascists", regardless of people's ethnicity.
Polish state indeed had some features common to fascist states at that period of time. Dictature, anti-communism, antisemitism, etc.
Also, at that time, the word "fascist" didn't have such negative connotation as it has now. In western democracies it was even considered as preferrable alternative to communism. Of course, in USSR fascism and nazism always were considered as extremely hostile ideologies due to their uncompromised anti-communism and therefore the word "fascist" always used to mark an enemy in propaganda.

They were perfectly sure already for several months.
Keitel's directive designating the date of the invasion of Poland as "no later than 01.09.1939" was issued yet on 03.04.1939.
This Keitlel's directive was later signatured by Adolf Hitler on 11.04.1939.
It can be found in documents used during the Nuremberg Trials ("Weisung fur die einheitliche Kriegsvorbereitung der Wehrmacht", Nuremberg 1949).
On 15.06.1939 the German operational plan of invasion ("Fall Weiss") was already finished.

Nazis had military plans against Czechoslovakia too. If Poland had given up to German demands before September 1939, their attack would be postponed or cancelled at all.

Yaaaa really... So what the hell is Article II of that protocol, especially quoted fragments:

Do you know what "military plans" mean?
Did anyone take obligations to take any actions against Poland in this protocol?

There was no something like "Polish lords" in 20th century.
And BTW most of noble families from that region originated from Ruthenian Boyars and only later underwent Polonization.
...
Except for that radio station there was military cooperation in several battles (the largest of them being Tomaszow).

How all this is relevant to the goals of Soviet operation?
There were no Polish lords - does it mean that Belorussians didn't need protection from Nazis?

The USSR did not loose any territories to Poland in 1920 and it was already discussed.

As it was already discussed, USSR was called Soviet Russia.
And as it was already discussed, Poland started war, invaded and annexed parts of Belorussia and Ukraine.

And the other goals were... ?

I already mentioned them several times here.
- Keep German troops further away from Soviet heartland.
- Reunite Soviet Belorussia and Ukraine with their Western parts, invaded by Poland in 1920.

 

[sophie]

Can we please stop talking about Poland PLEASE?

 

[Domen]

Polish state indeed had some features common to fascist states at that period of time. Dictature, anti-communism, antisemitism, etc.

Historians of the Communist Block before 1956 considered every right-wing dictatorship as "fascism".

But this communist theory is fundamentally wrong.

Polish Communist authorities even issued a "decree from 22.01.1946 about criminal responsibility for the September defeat and for the fascisation of the public life" (violating the principle "lex retro non agit", as well as another decree about criminal responsibility of those who signed the Volksliste during the war).

Pilsudski's dictatorship was a typical inter-war authoritarian dictatorship, common in Europe at that time, which had nothing to do with fascism.

Even Italians of that time said that Pilsudski had nothing to do with fascism.

And after 1935 (Pilsudski's death) some tendencies which - at a glance - seemed similar to some fascist solutions appeared.

However, those tendencies failed and Poland never changed into a totalitarian state before WW2.

And ideology of the Polish ruling camp after 1935 never resembled fascist ideology.

features common to fascist states (...) Dictature, anti-communism, antisemitism, etc.

Italian Fascism wasn't even antisemitic. It was German Nazism which was antisemitic. So I don't see connection between antisemitism and fascism.

Being anti-communist (BTW - so much "anti-communist" that Poland refused to join the Anti-Comintern Pact...) was due to unpleasant historical experiences.

Not every single right-wing dictature, as I already explain, is a fascist dictature, as Communist theory from 1950s claimed.

Of course, in USSR fascism and nazism always were considered as extremely hostile ideologies due to their uncompromised anti-communism and therefore the word "fascist" always used to mark an enemy in propaganda.

OK.

I just wonder why they used to sign friendly agreements with states which had "extremely hostile ideologies"...

For example that friendly agreement of 23 August 1939...

And also later when they provided supplies to and supported that state with "extremely hostile ideology"...

=======================================

From what point was Germany doomed in WW2?

From that point when they violated the German-Soviet alliance and attacked the USSR.

They should have kept taking advantage of the fact that Soviet Union was supplying their industry and they should have kept trying to finish Britain first.

Question is if Stalin had any plans of violating the alliance and attacking Germany first, as several historians claim.

For example Mark Solonin, Igor Bunich and Victor Suvorov.

Maybe entire German invasion of the Soviet Union was just a preemptive strike? What do you think?

And if you think that Stalin had no plans of attacking Germany in 1941 then explain why.

 

[Zardnaar]

Anyone else wishing that eastern Europe got nuked into oblivion in the 40's?

 

[Domen]

I am getting nuked from this thread. There are more interesting things to do.

 

[red_elk]

Historians of the Communist Block before 1956 considered every right-wing dictatorship as "fascism".

And this is the answer to your question why Poland was called fascist state in Soviet propaganda.

Italian Fascism wasn't even antisemitic. It was German Nazism which was antisemitic. So I don't see connection between antisemitism and fascism.

Antisemitism as a form of radical nationalism and xenophobia is definitely related to fascism. Even if Italian fascism wasn't antisemitic (wasn't it?), it doesn't mean that Polish one will not be antisemitic too. Radical anti-communism is also a property of fascism, just read definition of fascism somewhere.

I just wonder why they used to sign friendly agreements with states which had "extremely hostile ideologies"...
For example that friendly agreement of 23 August 1939...

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not a declaration of alliance - it was a non-aggression agreement. The same agreements Germany had with some other countries (including Poland, BTW). As I already said, the MRP was a big success of Soviet diplomacy - without it the USSR would become diplomatically isolated, with all European great powers being hostile to the USSR, and after September 1939, with Nazi troops in Western Belorussia and Ukraine, just in a few steps from Minsk, Kiev and Leningrad.

And also later when they provided supplies to and supported that state with "extremely hostile ideology"...
They should have kept taking advantage of the fact that Soviet Union was supplying their industry and they should have kept trying to finish Britain first.

Germany was not supplied for free, in return USSR was getting for example, machine parts, which were used in military. The German advantage from this agreement, in terms of German-Soviet balance of power was arguable, to say the least.

From that point when they violated the German-Soviet alliance and attacked the USSR.

There was no German-Soviet alliance - there was a non-aggression agreement. Both sides had an opposite, uncompromisingly hostile ideologies and were preparing for war against each other.

Question is if Stalin had any plans of violating the alliance and attacking Germany first, as several historians claim.
For example Mark Solonin, Igor Bunich and Victor Suvorov.

First of all, these people are not historians, all three of them are writers.
I haven't heard about any credible historian who support such claims.
Read David Glantz, for example, if you don't trust Russian historians.

Maybe entire German invasion of the Soviet Union was just a preemptive strike? What do you think?
And if you think that Stalin had no plans of attacking Germany in 1941 then explain why.

This is a well-known version, expressed in first time by Goebbels.
There are several big problems with this version:
- No evidences or documents of Soviet military plans to attack Germany in 1941
- More importantly, no evidences of German intelligence reports that the Soviets were about to attack. If Germans were unaware of Soviet alleged attack, German action cannot be called preemptive strike.
- Finally, there are evidences that Nazis were preparing their "preemptive" strike since mid-1940. Well-known plan "Barbarossa". Even if the Soviets indeed had plans to attack Germany in 1941 (there could be military sense in Soviet pre-emptive strike in May 1941, for example), the German attack was planned long before.

I am getting nuked from this thread. There are more interesting things to do.

Thank you for an interesting discussion. No sarcasm.

 

[Lord Baal]

I am getting nuked from this thread. There are more interesting things to do.

Then go bloody do them and leave us in peace.

Okay, subject change: Did Hitler make a grievous strategic error in invading Crete rather than Malta?

 

[LightSpectra]

I thought the Axis attempted to invade Malta but failed.

 

[Lord Baal]

I thought the Axis attempted to invade Malta but failed.

Nope. Malta was subjected to a ridiculous amount of bombing - I think it actually exceeded the tonnage used in the Blitz by a considerable margin - but there as never any attempt to invade the island. All this despite Rommel practically begging for such an invasion to take place.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I know that Kesselring had a major hard-on for a Maltese invasion, but the troops and aircraft it was agreed would be required to tackle Malta were repeatedly sent elsewhere.

 

[Lord Baal]

I know that Kesselring had a major hard-on for a Maltese invasion, but the troops and aircraft it was agreed would be required to tackle Malta were repeatedly sent elsewhere.

Crete was notably the recipient of many of the airborne troops Kesselring intended to se in a Maltese invasion, and I'm sure many of the troops requested by Rommel for either a Maltese invasion or as reinforcements for the Afrika Corps were sent instead to Yugoslavia and Greece. After that, planning for Operation: Barbarossa completely took over German strategic thinking. In fact, the Cretan operation was actually a lead-in to Barbarossa, so you could say it dominated at least Hitler's thinking for even longer, if not the High Command.

 

[Joecoolyo]

What purpose would an occupied Malta serve to the Nazi war effort? An airbase for North African operations?

 

[Lord Baal]

What purpose would an occupied Malta serve to the Nazi war effort? An airbase for North African operations?

An occupied Malta would be of little use as an airbase for the Axis. Taking it would primarily be so as to prevent its use as an airbase and vital point in the Mediterranean supply corridor for the Allies. It would also make supplying Rommel a hell of a lot easier. I think less than half of the ships sent from Italy to Tunisia actally made the trip (though even fewer Allied ships survived the similar gauntlet through the Mediterranean) so removing the Allies from Malta would be tremendously useful for the Afrika Corps.

 

[Millman]

What and where is this going? It's not a matter of losing during a war. If you didn't win it means you could have made all the right moves and still lost. Maybe not all the right circumstances fell into place with all the aspects of the war.

That's if you want Germany to win? There are plenty of other questions to ask.

 

[Lord Baal]

What and where is this going? It's not a matter of losing during a war. If you didn't win it means you could have made all the right moves and still lost. Maybe not all the right circumstances fell into place with all the aspects of the war.

That's if you want Germany to win? There are plenty of other questions to ask.

I have absolutely no idea who you are directing this at, or what point you're trying to make.