Counter-Barbarossa?

[holoween]

Its overall fairly simple. If one assumes that germany and russia will end up fighting at some point then the 41 point is ideal to be able to make the first move.
So you could say in an inevitable war between the two it was a preemptive attack. In any other way though it was a straight up attack.

 

[keynes2.0]

A preemptive attack is hardly the only strategy you can arrive at.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Its overall fairly simple. If one assumes that germany and russia will end up fighting at some point then the 41 point is ideal to be able to make the first move.
So you could say in an inevitable war between the two it was a preemptive attack. In any other way though it was a straight up attack.

In this sense then I agree, although I strongly rebuke the idea posted earlier, that the Soviets were on the verge of launching an offensive themselves in 1941, and that the Germans simply beat them to the punch by a matter of days/weeks/months.

Without a doubt though, with the nazis ruling Germany, and the western allies temporarily subdued, war would come to the east.

The reason why hitler would almost always declare war before Stalin, is because the USSR can outlast Nazi Germany, te USSR doesn't need to conquer land to stay relevant militarily and economically, the Soviet Union was much more capable to play the long game than Germany.

Edit: a further thought I had after that^above^ rambling, is that notwithstanding the hardships of life in USSR in that era, the USSR's centrally planned, communist system did one hell of a job organizing and supplying the war effort. Such a thing was utterly inconceivable to most of the world prior, nonetheless Hitler.

 

[Jos de trol]

In this sense then I agree, although I strongly rebuke the idea posted earlier, that the Soviets were on the verge of launching an offensive themselves in 1941, and that the Germans simply beat them to the punch by a matter of days/weeks/months.

Without a doubt though, with the nazis ruling Germany, and the western allies temporarily subdued, war would come to the east.

The reason why hitler would almost always declare war before Stalin, is because the USSR can outlast Nazi Germany, te USSR doesn't need to conquer land to stay relevant militarily and economically, the Soviet Union was much more capable to play the long game than Germany.

Edit: a further thought I had after that^above^ rambling, is that notwithstanding the hardships of life in USSR in that era, the USSR's centrally planned, communist system did one hell of a job organizing and supplying the war effort. Such a thing was utterly inconceivable to most of the world prior, nonetheless Hitler.

I don't think the USSR would have accomplished much without the US support, that's what made them shine.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I don't think the USSR would have accomplished much without the US support, that's what made them shine.

Aaah this myth again. I expect we will soon talk about how lend lease safed their ass and someone will say something about locomotives right ?


Why not the otherway around for a change ? The Soviets made the US shine.

 

[Jos de trol]

Aaah this myth again. I expect we will soon talk about how lend lease safed their ass and someone will say something about locomotives right ?


Why not the otherway around for a change ? The Soviets made the US shine.

they also sent 50 fur hats you know

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

they also sent 50 fur hats you know

I am not taling about sending military material hun. I am talking about breaking the back of the Wehrmacht.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

I don't think the USSR would have accomplished much without the US support, that's what made them shine.

Right.. Because the Germans still had a huge chance of winning it in 1943+ when the military goods really started flowing.
Look man LL was great, but the Russians had halted and turned the tables on the Germans before vet much equipment reached them. I used to think the same as you do(mostly from documentaries that seriously exaggerate the effect of LL, and underestimate the fighting prowess of soviet forces.

Had the Soviets not gotten LL, the offensives if 44, and 45 would not have happened nearly so dramatically, and while there are no absolutes, the Germans were pretty much already boned by this point.

 

[keynes2.0]

People always say that. I have yet to see someone actually get down to brass tacks. Let's remove the US support. Germany maintains air superiority over the Soviet Union (much smaller bombing campaign) and the Soviets can only mobilize half as many forces for mobile operations and shoot half as many artillery shells in every battle (no lend lease). Really drill down to the details please and explain to me how the Soviets inevitably reach Berlin before 1946 brings famine and their drafting slows immensely because there is no one left to draft except for new 18 year olds.

People talk like it's inevitable that the Soviets would win after Kursk because they did win after Kursk. But they won after Kursk with British and American help.

 

[SDSkinner]

Isn't the consensus that while land lease was essential for things like aircraft fuel and other supplies, the USSR managed to beat back the 41 offense without any aid and not significant amounts in 42? Aka land lease was essential for going on the offensive, but even without it Germany wouldn't be able to knock the USSR out of the war?

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

People talk like it's inevitable that the Soviets would win after Kursk because they did win after Kursk. But they won after Kursk with British and American help.

True but, just because LL goes away doesn't mean the Wallies do. D day will happen eventually, and the Germans situation was still untenable in the long run, just in this situation the Soviets end up with less client states than they got IRL.

Again, by 1943, the Soviets have already blunted and attrition'd the German army badly, mostly with their own gear.

LL was a hell of a shot in the arm, but was not a deciding factor for the campaigns that could have ended in a Soviet defeat.( I also don't want people to think I'm one of those guys who say LL wasn't important/effective, because it was a hell of a relief for te Soviets as they begun to deplete manpower and faced hard choices between production and soldiers.

 

[keynes2.0]

but even without it Germany wouldn't be able to knock the USSR out of the war?

Okay, so Germany doesn't knock the Soviets out of the war. Instead we have a soviet union in '46 which is going through a famine, lacks the essential materials for production of ammunition and fuel at more than a fraction of what they historically had and has run out of adult men to draft. It's not knocking them out of the war but it sure isn't a steamroller headed towards Berlin.

Again, by 1943, the Soviets have already blunted and attrition'd the German army badly, mostly with their own gear.

Sure had. And they'd also taken even heavier losses themselves. WWII was in the end a war of industry. But on the eastern front people constantly talk about manpower and manpower losses.

 

[holoween]

In this sense then I agree, although I strongly rebuke the idea posted earlier, that the Soviets were on the verge of launching an offensive themselves in 1941, and that the Germans simply beat them to the punch by a matter of days/weeks/months.

Without a doubt though, with the nazis ruling Germany, and the western allies temporarily subdued, war would come to the east.

The reason why hitler would almost always declare war before Stalin, is because the USSR can outlast Nazi Germany, te USSR doesn't need to conquer land to stay relevant militarily and economically, the Soviet Union was much more capable to play the long game than Germany.

Edit: a further thought I had after that^above^ rambling, is that notwithstanding the hardships of life in USSR in that era, the USSR's centrally planned, communist system did one hell of a job organizing and supplying the war effort. Such a thing was utterly inconceivable to most of the world prior, nonetheless Hitler.

That the soviet union was about to start a war in 41 is laughable. Germany hasd just defeated the then considered strongest military power in europe in 6 weeks and the soviets barely managed to beat finnland. who in their right mind would declare war in such a situation. though this is the same reason why hitler thought it would be easier to just conquer the soviets to be able to fight a prolonged war against england.

Also it should be said that war between germany and the soviet union wasnt even inevitable. If hitler was a bit more flexible like stalin was he could have easily simply stayed allied with stalin and split europe between them. Britains situation would be desperate even with support from the usa and would probably have to arrange with a peace in a few years at the latest.

Also looking at the long term (20+ years) i wouldnt even say that the soviet union has an advantedge. If germany finishes the war with britain it will have access to all the resources necessary as there wont be a blocade and its doubtful that the soviet union would be able to keep up technologically.

 

[Cavalry]

Also it should be said that war between germany and the soviet union wasnt even inevitable. If hitler was a bit more flexible like stalin was he could have easily simply stayed allied with stalin and split europe between them. Britains situation would be desperate even with support from the usa and would probably have to arrange with a peace in a few years at the latest..

As said before the USSR will start war with Nazi after securing alliance with the US and take care of the Japanese. Who believe in a piece of paper signed by Adolf Hitler anymore?

Churchill understood the same thing when he refuse to make peace with Hitler, and he understood in advance that USA will come to the alliance finally someday. No one can afford to let Hitler have all the Europe.

The US also understood that and they began attacking Nazi submarines to provoke Hitler!

The only acceptable peace is Hitler return France and Poland.

 

[Cavalry]

Sure had. And they'd also taken even heavier losses themselves. WWII was in the end a war of industry. But on the eastern front people constantly talk about manpower and manpower losses.

because that show the mind to fight and where the real fighting happened. If one talk about industrial strength, let's check the France!

 

[holoween]

As said before the USSR will start war with Nazi after securing alliance with the US

lol so the sovitets choice is to stay allied to the strongest land power in the world at the time or dropp it for an army of 100k on th eother side of the world. seems likely.

Who believe in a piece of paper signed by Adolf Hitler anymore?

He actually kept the agreements with the soviets up to that point and it was highly beneficial for both.

Churchill understood the same thing when he refuse to make peace with Hitler, and he understood in advance that USA will come to the alliance finally someday. No one can afford to let Hitler have all the Europe.

The US also understood that and they began attacking Nazi submarines to provoke Hitler!

The only acceptable peace is Hitler return France and Poland.

Churchill not wanting peace and a peace being eventually made are 2 very different things. if the soviets and germany dont fight there is very little britain can do to challenge germany in europe and with no eastern front the african campaign could go quite differently. If its 42 and britain has lost all of the mddle east and there is no german soviet war they will think twice about continuing the fight.
Also open us invlovement in the war is doubtful without the declaration from germany.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Sure had. And they'd also taken even heavier losses themselves. WWII was in the end a war of industry. But on the eastern front people constantly talk about manpower and manpower losses.

But it also gave the Soviets some breathing space, which they had desperately needed.

And despite the Germans having a much larger industry(plus occupied industry), the Soviets had something the Germans did not, oil, and rare alloying metals. There is also the massive difference in manufacturing philosophy, with the Soviets being frugal and pragmatic, while the Germans were comparatively wasteful and lacking direction.

Had there been no LL, and assuming Wallies stayed otherwise pretty historical, then I think the Soviets would have still outlasted te Germans, just with a loooot more dead due to malnutrition, and a much less advantages position post war(prolly more like post WWI France than a budding superpower like in OTL).

 

[Cavalry]

He actually kept the agreements with the soviets up to that point and it was highly beneficial for both.

Stalin didn't guess like us. He fought the Axis before. He has the secret service and a team of advisers. Finnland was filled with German troop and the German refused to withdraw when Stalin asked, even that Finnland belongs to Soviet's sphere of influence.

Hitler also want to test the USSR and propose a tri-party non pact that give British India to USSR's sphere of influence. Stalin tried to delay by counter propose to get Romania and some other German Balkans allies. No way the German could accept that!

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Churchill not wanting peace and a peace being eventually made are 2 very different things. if the soviets and germany dont fight there is very little britain can do to challenge germany in europe and with no eastern front the african campaign could go quite differently. If its 42 and britain has lost all of the mddle east and there is no german soviet war they will think twice about continuing the fight.
Also open us invlovement in the war is doubtful without the declaration from germany.

The whole war with the Wallies was a means to an end, securing the west so they could go east without fear of a two front war. Securing land in the east for lebensraum was central to the Nazis whole plan(including the most ugly and heinous of plans).

Also no eastern front does not preclude victory in the ME, because it doesn't change the axis problem of supplying an army in the North Africa. It would certainly change things up due to more availible air power I guess in the Med, but there was still not enough shipping assets or port capacity to support any larger of an Africa korps.

 

[holoween]

The whole war with the Wallies was a means to an end, securing the west so they could go east without fear of a two front war. Securing land in the east for lebensraum was central to the Nazis whole plan(including the most ugly and heinous of plans).

Also no eastern front does not preclude victory in the ME, because it doesn't change the axis problem of supplying an army in the North Africa. It would certainly change things up due to more availible air power I guess in the Med, but there was still not enough shipping assets or port capacity to support any larger of an Africa korps.

Yes youre right for hitler fighting and conquering russia was the end goal. But the idea behind it was that it would allow germany to be selfsuficient in resources so a british blockade coldnt be as damaging as it was in the first worldwar. Once you have beaten them though and have full acess to those resources anyways there is little point in actually going through with it so as i said if hitler was more flexible on his foreign policy it wuldnt have been a problem.

The part where no eastern front significantly helps the african campaign is that a lot of trucks could be spared for it so the big issue of ferrying supplies from the ports to the front would have ben significantly reduced and potentially replacements for equippment lost would be broght there at a faster rate. together that could easily have been enough to secure victory in this campaign.