Soviet Union Invades Germany, 1941

TerrorFirmer

What does anyone make of the theories out there that state the Soviet Union was itself getting ready to invade Germany in the early years of the second world war? Personally I don't think it entirely credible given the dispersion of troops at the onset of German invasion among other things but it does have a considerable amount of followers, with many respected historians.

Of what I've read, many agree that in such an event the Red Army would have entered Berlin no later then 1942 - what about this point? I find it hard to believe even in the event of an invasion this would have been true. The war itself would probably have ultimately ended the same unless the Soviets sued for immediate peace at any cost after initial catastrophic losses. But anyway, although it'd be alot harder for the Germans to recouperate after the shock of an initial invasion then it was in reality for the Soviet Union due to the sizes in territory, I couldn't see the entire nation, at the peak of its power, falling to the ill-equipped and poorly performing Red Army in 1941 or 1942. Unless, of course, history played itself out in the same fashion and the wehrmacht overstretched themselves to lead the Soviets back into their territory. But the likely success of an actual invasion? I think it would have been decisively crushed, in my opinion.

Opinions?

brianthebard

Well the first point to consider is the non-aggression pact and what that meant from the soviet perspective. Imo the USSR was desperately trying to buy time. It was nowhere near ready for war when it did come (I'm fairly certain it was in the middle of a 5 year plan). Also we should consider how easy it was for the German armies to advance into Soviet territory initially. If it hadn't been for hitler's bumbling they would have taken Moscow, no doubt. But that's a different topic for a different day. We all know that it was the winter and the scorched earth tactics that caused the German army to overstretch itself. We know that the Russian army was literally being wiped out and replaced. Now imagine the inverse-An ill trained, ill equipped Russian army pushing into a well defended, heavily armed German territory. It doesn't bear thinking about. Imo it would've taken another three-five years before Russia would've been in a good position to attack.

Mick86

HavoK wrote:

Of what I've read, many agree that in such an event the Red Army would have entered Berlin no later then 1942 - what about this point? ...

The Soviet Union had great difficulty in defeating the Finns. Defeating the German Army in the space of a year would have been beyond them.

silverharp

I beleive hitler was the only person that Stalin actually liked/admired. Also he refused to believe for days that the germans were invading and even gave orders not to return fire

mountainyman

If the Russians had invaded Germany the Germans would have destroyed them.
I don't want to overstate the 'Marshall Frost and General Winter' effect (as to do so detracts from the Red Army- IMO the great fighting force of WW2) but logistics and winter did screw the Germans.

On the other hand the Germans could have hammered the first wave of Russian invaders, ended up at the gates of Moscow(or even taken it) and still lost the war.

The logic of national socialism was so irrational that it was doomed.

MM

brianthebard

I'm not a war historian but what do you mean by "the great fighting force of WW2"? The Soviet population was literally bled dry by the amount of men lost in the war. The vast majority of soldiers had little or no training with probably millions of conscripts "fighting" for the motherland. While I think the russian military emerged from the war a quite sophisicated force, imo the German army was the strongest and in most ways the best army in the war, held back only by the bumbling of Hitler, as I've already mentioned. I would genuinely like to hear your opinion on this because as I say I'm no expert and I might be missing out on some info.

micdug

brianthebard wrote:

I'm not a war historian but what do you mean by "the great fighting force of WW2"? The Soviet population was literally bled dry by the amount of men lost in the war. The vast majority of soldiers had little or no training with probably millions of conscripts "fighting" for the motherland. While I think the russian military emerged from the war a quite sophisicated force, imo the German army was the strongest and in most ways the best army in the war, held back only by the bumbling of Hitler, as I've already mentioned. I would genuinely like to hear your opinion on this because as I say I'm no expert and I might be missing out on some info.

I wouldn't go quite that far brian, and it does depend on what you mean by sophisticated force/strongest force. Soviet doctrine, though different from 'Western' doctrine was more sophisticated then German, particularly the emphasis on deep operations - the pinnacle of mechanized warfare. Germany had arguably a better officer corps, leading some to say that Germany was tactically superior and the Soviets strategically better. There is a dreadful misconception that the Soviet Army was a brutish thing happy to throw waves of conscripts to their deaths, this largely spread as propaganda, but evidence indicates that it was supremely organised and responsive war machine. Look at the Soviet War in the far east to see how they annihilated the Japanese Armies of Manchuria. In the initial stages of the war, which was faught on soviet territory who were not yet equipped to deal with the Wehrmacht losses were tremendous, as time moved on late 44, casualties dropped very low.

With regards to technology - whole separate argument, but in general Soviet equipment was as good as or better than German equipment, tanks in particular were superior e.g. T34, IS2

The best army is the army that wins.

micdug

HavoK wrote:

What does anyone make of the theories out there that state the Soviet Union was itself getting ready to invade Germany in the early years of the second world war? Personally I don't think it entirely credible given the dispersion of troops at the onset of German invasion among other things but it does have a considerable amount of followers, with many respected historians.

Of what I've read, many agree that in such an event the Red Army would have entered Berlin no later then 1942 - what about this point? I find it hard to believe even in the event of an invasion this would have been true. The war itself would probably have ultimately ended the same unless the Soviets sued for immediate peace at any cost after initial catastrophic losses. But anyway, although it'd be alot harder for the Germans to recouperate after the shock of an initial invasion then it was in reality for the Soviet Union due to the sizes in territory, I couldn't see the entire nation, at the peak of its power, falling to the ill-equipped and poorly performing Red Army in 1941 or 1942. Unless, of course, history played itself out in the same fashion and the wehrmacht overstretched themselves to lead the Soviets back into their territory. But the likely success of an actual invasion? I think it would have been decisively crushed, in my opinion.

Opinions?

I think there is one major proponent of the theory that Stalin intended to invade Germany in 1941 (it is accepted he believed war was inevitable with Germany, but believed 43 would be more likely) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov
However most respected military historians disagree as evidence points to:
- No Fuel or Ammo Dumps of significant size needed to support invasion
- Most soviet ranks required significant mainteance at the time and few were field ready.
- transport separated from heavy equipment (artillary etc)
- Troops dispersed away from rail heads.

All in all very unlikely.

brianthebard

micdug wrote:

I wouldn't go quite that far brian, and it does depend on what you mean by sophisticated force/strongest force. Soviet doctrine, though different from 'Western' doctrine was more sophisticated then German, particularly the emphasis on deep operations - the pinnacle of mechanized warfare. Germany had arguably a better officer corps, leading some to say that Germany was tactically superior and the Soviets strategically better. There is a dreadful misconception that the Soviet Army was a brutish thing happy to throw waves of conscripts to their deaths, this largely spread as propaganda, but evidence indicates that it was supremely organised and responsive war machine. Look at the Soviet War in the far east to see how they annihilated the Japanese Armies of Manchuria. In the initial stages of the war, which was faught on soviet territory who were not yet equipped to deal with the Wehrmacht losses were tremendous, as time moved on late 44, casualties dropped very low.

With regards to technology - whole separate argument, but in general Soviet equipment was as good as or better than German equipment, tanks in particular were superior e.g. T34, IS2

The best army is the army that wins.

Good answer, although I can't help feel that when an army loses over 10million soldiers that they were throwing untrained men into war. I favoured the german army because it appears to have been must more professional and trained than any other european army (or the US army for that matter) after all the german army was preparing for war much earlier than anyone else. I can't help but agree with your final statement though

TerrorFirmer

micdug wrote:

I wouldn't go quite that far brian, and it does depend on what you mean by sophisticated force/strongest force. Soviet doctrine, though different from 'Western' doctrine was more sophisticated then German, particularly the emphasis on deep operations - the pinnacle of mechanized warfare. Germany had arguably a better officer corps, leading some to say that Germany was tactically superior and the Soviets strategically better. There is a dreadful misconception that the Soviet Army was a brutish thing happy to throw waves of conscripts to their deaths, this largely spread as propaganda, but evidence indicates that it was supremely organised and responsive war machine. Look at the Soviet War in the far east to see how they annihilated the Japanese Armies of Manchuria. In the initial stages of the war, which was faught on soviet territory who were not yet equipped to deal with the Wehrmacht losses were tremendous, as time moved on late 44, casualties dropped very low.

With regards to technology - whole separate argument, but in general Soviet equipment was as good as or better than German equipment, tanks in particular were superior e.g. T34, IS2

The best army is the army that wins.

Man for man the Wehrmacht was superior to the Red Army. The biggest fault of the German Armed forces was precisely as Mountainyman put it - having Hitler involved in active leadership. Although his 'stand and die' orders probably saved the German Army in winter 1941 it led to absolute disaster in 1943 to the end of the war. Whole German armies were trapped and cut off in the same way that the Red Army units were in the onset of invasion because of Stalins same tactical approach.

A good example of German superiority is Kursk, despite it being the single battle above all that shattered the Germans. Despite the Russians knowing for months in advance, and constructing the most heavily defended zone on the planet, the Germans still almost broke through in the south against Russian numeric superiority.

From winter 1943 onwards the Germans were completely routed, partly because of the Kursk disaster and lack of reserves but also by Hitlers idiotic directives. They lost 300,000 men in June/July 1944 alone - 25% of their entire strength without having even fought a battle. In 1944, this loss of manpower was a disaster on a scale that surpassed Stalingrad and lead to the total collaspe of the gains Germany as made as they had to retreat on all fronts to avoid encirclement. The Stand or Die orders also led to similar huge envelopments until the end of the war. Essentially the Soviets did the exact same thing as the invaders had done in 1941. Except Stalin had learned lessons - Hitler apparently not. He squandered literally hundreds of thousands of troops that could have been better used elsewhere. By summer/autumn 1944 the Eastern Front had collasped in my opinion as an effective fighting front. Had the Germans correctly uncovered Soviet plans and concentrated their equipment and manpower to army group center instead of diverting it to the others, the war might have lasted far longer. Stalingrad was a disaster, Kursk a huge one and the loss of Army Group Center the final nail in the coffin.

On a strategic level the Soviets were sound. I agree that early events led to the widely accepted image of primitive strategy involving endless Soviet manpower being flung at Germany until its defeat. This is, however, partly the case. Without such a huge reserve of manpower the Red Army would have been destroyed far earlier during the war.

Assessing the might of the German army is surprisingly easy when one considers that the Wehrmacht had 75% of its forces in the east - something like 50 divisions in the West facing the Allies and 170 against the Russians. Fighting these 'prestige' forces in the West was certainly no easy task for the Allies. Of course this also serves to highlight the unstoppable Red Army also.

I would agree that on a general level the Soviets had superior armour during the course of the war as a whole, but once Tiger and especially Panther tanks appeared on the battlefield Soviet armour losses once again rose dramatically. Both were feared by the western Allies and the Russians.

Had Hitler been an onlooker rather then partaker in military planning in the East, I still doubt the war could have been won in totality. But the Germans would have most likely at least succeeded in forcing a truce and gaining vast tracts of land. Any chance of 'winning' the war came to and end when the Red Army kept throwing soldiers at the Germans after the first few months of the invasion even after catastrophic defeats and managed to shift industry to the east. So I think, in my opinion, outright victory was impossible after winter 1941. But the war could have still favored Germany.

Hitlers leadership did as much for the Red Army almost as its own military efforts did.

brianthebard

I think its widely agreed that if Hitler hadn't been involved in leadership there wouldn't have been a hold up of the advance to Moscow in the late summer of 1941, and the city would've been captured before the winter. Although I believe that in an alternative history this would've happened, the majority of Soviet land, resources and people would have been behind the Urals, relatively safe. I think its impossible to predict whether or not Germany would've forced a truce or kept fighting, if you look at Nazi goals beyond the four year plans they are notoriously vague and silly. The hope that a thousand year Reich would be established somehow was in no way thought out, and neither was the annilhilation of the Slavic peoples, even though it was high on Hitler's agenda. Because of the vagueness of German goals I feel that it was ineviteable that they would lose at some stage by overstretching themselves, even if they had won in 1941.

Capt'n Midnight

micdug wrote:

Look at the Soviet War in the far east to see how they annihilated the Japanese Armies of Manchuria.
...
With regards to technology - whole separate argument, but in general Soviet equipment was as good as or better than German equipment, tanks in particular were superior e.g. T34, IS2

The defeat of Japan wasn't so one sided, but it was arguably the most import victory for the Russians in the whole war. It meant the Japanese went south instead and Russia didn't have to fight on two fronts, also released the siberian troops for the counter attack at Moscow. Again very important strategically but not a tactical walkover.

Germans were very good in defense so I would doubt that the Russians have been able to break through easily. The Russian army still hadn't recovered from purges and lots more material was needed. T34 were only coming on line at that time.

As for Moscow - Napoleon captured it for all the good it did him.

For me the more interesting questions are
- could the Checz's (SP) have held out by themselves for long - or would the 1/5th of the army that was german have turned
- could the Poles have held out if they had retreated back to the rivers ?
- if France had invaded fully in September 39 how would the war have gone ?
The poles were never going to let the Russians on their territory - but if they had ??

Or for me another question - what if Italy had remained neutral ?
there would have been no Balkan or African adventure ( 40% of the german air force lost on malta / africa ! ) , no invasion route from the Med later so one less front to fight on.

micdug

As for Moscow - Napoleon captured it for all the good it did him.

For me the more interesting questions are
- could the Checz's (SP) have held out by themselves for long - or would the 1/5th of the army that was german have turned
- could the Poles have held out if they had retreated back to the rivers ?
- if France had invaded fully in September 39 how would the war have gone ?
The poles were never going to let the Russians on their territory - but if they had ??

Or for me another question - what if Italy had remained neutral ?
there would have been no Balkan or African adventure ( 40% of the german air force lost on malta / africa ! ) , no invasion route from the Med later so one less front to fight on.

As with all scenarios on the Eastern Front, in all probability Germany would have lost...can't see the two sides drawing a truce.

The Czechs scenario would have been interesting, their Army and equipment was modern. Difficult to see them holding out for long though with overwhelming size of Germany, surrounded on three sides.
Poland was in a far worse situation, big army but old technology and disposition, but France would have inflicted severe damage if she had invaded, possibly winning the war, having the second largest army in the world (after Soviets) and much better armour then the Germans. Such a pity the Maginot mentality had taken over by that stage...
Italy is an interesting one - the disasters in Sudan, Egypt and Greece sucked and enormous amount of energy from the German War machine - they would have been far better off without the Italians, and it could be argued a lot of the delays/shortages on the eastern front were caused by Mussolini

TerrorFirmer

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

As for Moscow - Napoleon captured it for all the good it did him.

For me the more interesting questions are
- could the Checz's (SP) have held out by themselves for long - or would the 1/5th of the army that was german have turned
- could the Poles have held out if they had retreated back to the rivers ?
- if France had invaded fully in September 39 how would the war have gone ?
The poles were never going to let the Russians on their territory - but if they had ??

Or for me another question - what if Italy had remained neutral ?
there would have been no Balkan or African adventure ( 40% of the german air force lost on malta / africa ! ) , no invasion route from the Med later so one less front to fight on.

But at least by the time he captured Moscow Napoleons armies were already in total disarray, mostly from disease. He lost most of this forces to disease then actual fighting. Far more so then Hitler, the weather and other enviromental factors completely destroyed Napoleon.

The Czechs - doubt they would have stood much of a chance. The size and postition of the country would have meant it easily being cut in half and a mobile attack like that on Poland would overrun most of the country initially. It would be hard to say if they would have fared any better then the poles really - probably slightly due to the better equipment.

The Poles - without Soviet intervention, they would have held out longer obviously but I doubt in any sense of significance. Their equipment was very outdated and no match for the Germans. Although tied in with the point about French invasion it would be interesting - a war even drawn out even a month or two more would seriously compromise the operation due to the danger of French invasion while forces were tied up in Poland.

French invasion - I doubt it would have succeeded ultimately. The main problem with the French was that they believed in strong static defensive lines and even having an army just as large and also as modern, if not more so then the Germans, they still generally followed the outdated tactics of the first world war. While the Germans concentrated their tanks in huge mobile forces striking the same location in overwhelming force, the French preferred to commit them piecemeal rather then 'risk' them all together. This is why, again despite having an army superior to the Wehrmact in armour and equal in numbers, France suffered one of the worst defeats in her history after the German invasion.

Italy and the African campaign - definately agree with micdug. The Italians opened up a new front that they couldn't even hold against ridiculously outnumbered British troops. The German intervention helped but ultimately was too slight to grasp victory, and large enough to drain other German theatres. The Lufewaffe lost a massive amount of their power in this theatre as well - again crucial for other fronts. Had the Germans committed far more forces to Africa and postponed the invasion of Russia until April or May 1942 - they could have easily have won there, and even pressed onto the Middle East without too much difficulty. That would not only have secured supply lines and another front to invade Russia from, but vast quantities of oil and even the possibility of Turkey joining the Axis and joining the coalition that invaded Russia.

Although it is easy to say these things as if the Axis where the only ones to make disasterous mistakes - the same things apply to the Western allies. All it would have taken is a better strategic initiative from the French to change the entire outcome of the war before it got into full and horrific momentum in 1941. In fact, had the Allies secured better relations with Russia in the years predating the war, Germany would never have dared invade either France, or the Soviet Union.

Whew...my few cent.

micdug

French invasion - I doubt it would have succeeded ultimately. The main problem with the French was that they believed in strong static defensive lines and even having an army just as large and also as modern, if not more so then the Germans, they still generally followed the outdated tactics of the first world war

I think the French could have achieved better than that. Blitzkrieg was designed to avoid a two front war, the 39 Wehrmacht simply could not even hold two fronts let alone defend against France and the UK and absolutely needed it to work, it was a huge gamble. If France had struck, it would have taken the main German industrial region of the Ruhr without much of a fight at least. This would have been enough for a war of attrition which France would have won with its industrial superiority. They did not even need decent tactics - just grind the German war machine down. In 39 Germany's industry was not mobilised (not really until 43) and the army had little mechanisation, using borrowed Czech tanks for 25% of the invading armour in the Polish Campaign. Without the Ruhr, Germany would have been in a desperate state - Hitlers gamble lost, prob a coup of senior Wehrmacht officers (who though the campaign was too early and a serious mistake).

n fact, had the Allies secured better relations with Russia in the years predating the war, Germany would never have dared invade either France, or the Soviet Union.

The simple answer (or difficult one in 39) was who was worse to the interests of Britain and France, both functioning democracies - Hitler or Stalin. There was a lot of sympathy for Germany over Versailles and most of the Political Elite in France and UK feared Communism more than Fascism. A lot of pre war politics was about balancing the aggressors.
However, if France had gotten into a stalemate with Hitler would Stalin have invaded Germany? How would the Western Allies react to that? An alliance between the three to drive communism out of Europe?

brianthebard

I know people say that the Allies didn't seem to fear Fascism as much as Communism, but when you look at the two dictatorships, who was taking over land in central europe? which extreme had risen up in several states in Europe, and which had fallen away after perhaps 23-24 (with perhaps a small rise in popularity after the wall street crash). Which state was a world industrial superpower with a history of starting wars, and which was only half way through transforming itself from an agrarian society? I'm not going to labour the point much longer but I think it would be an interesting study to look at the Allies fears from a new perspective and ask why they didn't fear the more overtly warmongering of the two dictatorships?

TerrorFirmer

Because until the war began, the UK and particularly France believed - wrongly - that they could contain Hitler. It's as simple as that really. As for the 'two dictatorships' - which are you speaking about? Italy or Spain? Neither were in any position to threaten the combination of France or the UK. Germany was the only genuine threat, and again, even at that France and UK fatally underestimated German strength. They believed in the event of war Germany would be decisively crushed.

Facism was undesirable but Communism was absolutely despised, not just feared. There were even French volunteers that fought with the Waffen SS against the Russians in the east - simply for their hatred of 'bolshevikism'. There were also volunteers from other countries (mainly nordic and from the east) that fought willingly against the Soviets yet refused to fight the Western armies.

brianthebard

I was referring to Hitler and Stalin. The french volunteers that fought for the SS were fascists, and the nordic volunteers can be explained by hitlers desire to create a nordic super race. It is easy to understand why these people were fighting for the nazis. But at the same time they represent a tiny minority.

micdug

HavoK wrote:

I would agree that on a general level the Soviets had superior armour during the course of the war as a whole, but once Tiger and especially Panther tanks appeared on the battlefield Soviet armour losses once again rose dramatically. Both were feared by the western Allies and the Russians.

It depends on what your strategy requires I suppose. The Tiger was a good tank for defensive warfare, almost a mobile strongpoint, but useless on the offensive. The Panther was technically good, but too late, too unreliable and too difficult to build and maintain. Any Country can build the "best" tank, but if you can't produce them in significant quantity its a neither here nor there. I still think the T34-85 was superior to the panther because it was available when it counted, reliable and easy to mass produce, with the added value that it was easy to use for a conscript army. Heinz Guderian himself thought that they should have focused on upgrading the Mk IV instead of wasting time retooling for a new tank.
The IS2 could and did take the fight to the Tiger and Panther. I take your point about the increase in Soviet tank losses, but this was also due to offensive nature of Soviet side at this time in the war - they were bound to take more losses. Best absolute tank of the War would have been the IS3, but that was too late for any serious combat. Became basis of the modern MBT though.

micdug

brianthebard wrote:

I was referring to Hitler and Stalin. The french volunteers that fought for the SS were fascists, and the nordic volunteers can be explained by hitlers desire to create a nordic super race. It is easy to understand why these people were fighting for the nazis. But at the same time they represent a tiny minority.

You should understand that it was a complex situation and most nations were split in their support. Even in Ireland you had volunteers joining both sides of the Spanish Civil War. France had a sizable communist party and many French supported the Soviets against Germany.
With regards to the British and French govts the answer probably lies with the internationalist nature of communism whereas facism was nationalist in nature and did not aim to convert other countries to the cause. At the time many nations felt the threat came from within as much as out, and communism certainly was that.
It should also be noted that little was known in the West about the Soviet Union or its intentions other than its propaganda. There was a belief that they were highly industrialised and had good armed forces.

brianthebard

Hmm, I agree with you about the international nature of communism, but the communist threat wasnt the same in the 1930s as it had been from 1917-1924. Plus there were fascist parties popping up in Britain and France, which were obviously of concern to their respective governments. The third republic did very well with dealing with left and right extremes during the inter war period actually. Anyways it was just a general musing I don't expect to find the answer tonight.

TerrorFirmer

brianthebard wrote:

Hmm, I agree with you about the international nature of communism, but the communist threat wasnt the same in the 1930s as it had been from 1917-1924.

No, it was actually worse. Although fascism prevailed in the end, Communism had a huge following in Germany and presented a serious threat to Nazi bids for power. There were frequently street battles between Fascist and Communist forces. Hitlers first actions upon coming to power were destroying and outlawing Communism in Germany. In this regard, up until about 1938 when it became clear Hitler was aggressive beyond his initial claims of uniting Germanic peoples, many European leaders actually felt Hitler was the sort of leader Germany needed.

Also just of interest about Tiger tanks:

Furthermore against the Soviet and Western Allied production numbers, even a 10:1 kill ratio would not have been sufficient for the Tigers. Some Tiger units did exceed the 10:1 kill ratio, including 13. Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland (16.67:1), schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 (12.82:1) and schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502 (13.08:1). These numbers must be set against the opportunity cost of building the expensive Tiger. Every Tiger built, for example, cost as much as four Sturmgeschütz III assault guns. One measure of cost-effectiveness, therefore, would be whether the Tiger's kill ratio was four times as high as the Sturmgeschutz III.

Just to highlight, as you said micdug, about the effective of Tigers in static positions. Just reading about the IS2 there though, it could destroy the Tiger from any aspect up to 1000m away, and the T34 85 from about 500, whereas the main American amour, the Sherman, was not able to penetrate the Tiger frontally - at all, from any distance.

brianthebard

I'm sorry but I've studied this period in detail and the communist threat in Germany was nowhere near the same as it was at the end of WWI. Yes the communist party was large, but it was decaying, with little in the way of active participation in communities and constantly falling out with the socialist party and there was splinter parties popping up every few years. Yes they were the biggest single opposition to Nazi power in Germany, but I'm talking about a threat to the allied nations, not within Germany.

TerrorFirmer

Communism was a far greater perceived threat to Europe then Fascism was. Again, the very ideals of communism were to spread its influence around the world. The European nations, again, before Hitlers intentions became clear, considered him potentially the man to bring Germany to a, believe it or not, great and peaceful future. As well as that, Fascism was hugely popular for its staunch hatred of communism. If you want to look at it another way, Fascism, even to those who hated it, was still to be considered the far lesser of two evils in comparison.

purple'n'gold

brianthebard wrote:

I'm not a war historian but what do you mean by "the great fighting force of WW2"? The Soviet population was literally bled dry by the amount of men lost in the war. The vast majority of soldiers had little or no training with probably millions of conscripts "fighting" for the motherland. While I think the russian military emerged from the war a quite sophisicated force, imo the German army was the strongest and in most ways the best army in the war, held back only by the bumbling of Hitler, as I've already mentioned. I would genuinely like to hear your opinion on this because as I say I'm no expert and I might be missing out on some info.

The German army would have defeated the Russians if they had not been side tracked into invading the Balkans. They lost a vital 6 weeks with that distraction. But fundamentally, if they had treated the Russian population decently they would have defeated Stalin. They (the Ukrainians in particular) hated and feared Stalin and would have jumped at the chance of defeating him. But the Nazis being what they were, brutal murderers without the cuteness to pretend to being their saviors blew it.

brianthebard

The Nazis made it very clear that the war with Russia was a war to destroy the Slavic people, why would they try to be their saviours? It would be fundamentally against their most core policies to act as saviours to a group of people who they saw as racially inferior.

TerrorFirmer

At the very least, Hitler could have acted in such a role temporarily. I think this is what purple'n'gold was saying. If he had entered the Soviet Union as a, or even posing as a, saviour, most historians agree that millions of men would have joined the Wehrmact to depose Stalins regime. Although, by this stage everybody knew that Hitlers ideals superceeded any shred of logic. It just happened to be fortunate that they never led to disaster until 1942 and 1943. After any possible victory, he could have then turned on those that had helped the Germany army. Much like Stalin did after the war, actually. But again, his outrageous beliefs blinded him to any sense of logic.

purple'n'gold

HavoK wrote:

At the very least, Hitler could have acted in such a role temporarily. I think this is what purple'n'gold was saying. If he had entered the Soviet Union as a, or even posing as a, saviour, most historians agree that millions of men would have joined the Wehrmact to depose Stalins regime. Although, by this stage everybody knew that Hitlers ideals superceeded any shred of logic. It just happened to be fortunate that they never led to disaster until 1942 and 1943. After any possible victory, he could have then turned on those that had helped the Germany army. Much like Stalin did after the war, actually. But again, his outrageous beliefs blinded him to any sense of logic.

Thank you, that is exactly what I meant.

purple'n'gold

If any one is really interested in this issue Basil Liddell Hart discusses it in depth in his “History of the second world war"

brianthebard

I understand what png is saying, but it is fundamentally opposed to what Nazism was about, it was a party and system built on ideology, without a proper foundation in reality. I don't think anyone can argue against that. For the German army to attack its sworn racial and political enemies (and at this stage the German people had been told they were such for almost ten years) and then to act as their saviours instead of their destroyers is completely against Nazi ideology. there was even a large group of Hungarian(I think) slavs who volunteered to fight for Germany against Russia, but Hitler would not allow it for ideological reasons.

purple'n'gold

Of course you are absolutely correct about what the Nazis crazy ideology was all about. What I am saying is that from Hitler’s point of view, he could have won the war first, then proceeded to murder the Slavic people. I suppose he was so lost in his own mad world that he never looked at the big picture.