Why did Hitler choose to attack Russia first?

[Verbose]

Well, then this specialist not only competent in matters of governing state, but also invisible and indeed grew on some magic tree in Siberia wilds. Prior Revolution and Great War more then half of russian population was illiterate, only in first years of 30s soviet state built working educational system for the masses.
And you cannot run a industrial state or industrial army without very large quantites of educated people. So soviet system needed some time to grew and as usual time was short.

This is the main reason for all failures of early Soviet state. Transformation from agrarian society to industrial is lenghty process and bolsheviks speed it up as much as they can.

So in your opinion, the particular style of politics played by Stalin had nothing to do with an apparent Soviet underperformance 1939-1941?

 

[Sharwood]

I have also heard something along the lines of Turkey giving military support to the Germans. Though it was more along the lines of sending in troops after the Germans took Stalingrad (which obviously didn't happen).

I'm not saying it's true, but I'm just saying I heard this. I was unable to confirm it (most likely because I didn't even bother researching it )


You can, but it will just take a bit of time, which varies on the amount of effort you put into building it.

Ahh, yes, I have heard this myself on one or two occasions. Like you, I never bothered to research it. I'm well aware of Turkish cooperation with the West, and their 'wait and see' attitude towards Barbarossa, but I think any Turkish assistance to Germany would be similar to projected Spanish assistance, or Sweden's repeated caving to German demands, no matter how much they disliked doing so. That is to say, when the Germans surrounded them on all sides and they didn't really have a choice anymore.

And as I said, Turkey was far more afraid of Russia than Germany, so allowing the Germans to take Stalin apart was in their best interrests, and had Stalingrad been taken, the Caucasus would have been open to Turkish penetration. They would have been foolish not to take it, if only to keep Hitler away from it. It is doubtful Hitler would have opposed them, considering their ability to put up a fight and be an irritant on his flank, so long as they sold him the oil they took charge of, similarly to the Swedish iron deal with Germany.

 

[CruelDwarf]

You can, but it will just take a bit of time, which varies on the amount of effort you put into building it.

7-10 years for school education. 5 years for university/military academy. I don't see how nay effort can speed up such processes. Onlu somelind of breeding programm come to mind

So in your opinion, the particular style of politics played by Stalin had nothing to do with an apparent Soviet underperformance 1939-1941?

As I say - underprformance of such kind is quite natural for state enduring a profound transformation in so brief time. "Underperfomance" was one of the results of this "style of politics".
Somekind of sad joke: "You may have it:
1. quick
2. cheap
3. good quality.
You may choose only two points."

 

[frekk]

But because of uninspring perfomance of mechanized units in this so called in soviet press "Liberation quest" ("Osvoboditelniy pokhod") and conflicts in Far East in 29th november of 1939 Prime Military Council recognized as necessary major reforms in RRKA tank units.

The Soviet Union never deployed any of its mechanized corps to Spain or the Far East - how could their performance have been uninspiring?

PMC's decision was based on politics. I will say again, everything was subject to communist interpretation, including military theory. PMC reorganized its forces along new doctrinal lines that were not based on mobile warfare principles, but on an ideological view of warfare.

So I don't see how Purges of 1937-38 effects reforming of mechanized crops in 1940 after RKKA recieved a great deal of combat experience and needed to reform accordingly.

You are ignoring the obvious. Red Army performance through the 30s had mostly been passable, fair, alright - not really great, but OK. Then comes a period of political repression of the officer corps and reorganization of the military by political favourites in the main military council, and suddenly the Red Army can't tie its own shoelaces. And yes, everyone in the main military council was a political favourite. The small number of military officials who had survived the Purge were, by definition, all political favourites and Stalinist yes-men.

These were not reforms inspired by the combat experiences of the past decade. They were a reactionary attack against reforms and a reversion to antique methods.

where USSR should take the competent specialists for all you speak about? Competent specialists don't grow on trees.

No, they are a product of conflict - something the USSR had no shortage of in the early 20th century. Nobody had much history of using the machines except maybe the British (and they, too, were very slow to adopt mobile warfare principles for political reasons).

As I say - underprformance of such kind is quite natural for state enduring a profound transformation in so brief time.

Right, because the Germans were really getting their butts kicked in the late thirties and early years of the forties. [/sarcasm]

There is simply no excuse why the Red Army was so poor at the outset of the war, except that the Russians became putty for some stern-looking father figure. Shades of nashi ...