Counter-Barbarossa?

[nuarbnellaffej]

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.

For the first paragraph that is somewhat true, but that is a big leap from our original premis of just no LL, and is a different debate all together, also no LL does not mean they will be able to knock USSR out of the war.

As for the second paragraph, more trucks don't really help if they can't get them, let alone all the extra fuel they need, to Africa.
Edit: the axis did send substantial reinforcements to Africa that never made it to port, due to allied air attacks.

 

[holoween]

For the first paragraph that is somewhat true, but that is a big leap from our original premis of just no LL, and is a different debate all together, also no LL does not mean they will be able to knock USSR out of the war.

yea looks like weve talked past each other there a bit. also true no LL doesnt mean a quick knockout.

As for the second paragraph, more trucks don't really help if they can't get them, let alone all the extra fuel they need, to Africa.
Edit: the axis did send substantial reinforcements to Africa that never made it to port, due to allied air attacks.

there were several logistical issues:
1. getting supplies across the sea to africa
2. port capacity in the wrong areas. there was enough port capacity in tunesia but almost none until you get to egypt.
3. moving supplies from tunesia to the front in egypt takes a lot of trucks and time.

no eastern front would allow better air support over the med to allow more convois to make it through and then more trucks to actually bring them to the frontline.
it wouldnt necessarily mean more divisions to be placed in africa but it would meant the few that were there could be supplied better which could be enough to result in an axis win.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

^^ I'm in agreement with you there.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Sorry for a likely double post, but I want to offer a disclaimer about my opinion on lend Lease to the USSR for those who might think I'm in a camp that in not(the camp that it didn't matter).

I DO think LL was very important to the conduct of the war, just not early eastern front. The 2 most important things gifted would likely be foodstuffs and high quality machine tools. Food to help make up for the loss of the Ukraine, as well as freeing up men and women for other more critical parts of the war effort.

Although machine tools represented only a tiny fraction of the total tonnage sent, they were invaluable to the Soviets. Not only did they get the machines themselves, but the machine tools had been preset with Russian language knobs and manuals, and also calibrated to the metric system which would have been a big deal at the time. The next most helpful item imo, would have to be trucks(not just in number but also quality, and off road capability).

-disclaimer complete-

 

[keynes2.0]

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

Which is a wonderfully euphemistic way to talk about them retreating out of crucial agricultural and industrial areas. They were getting their ass kicked. The fact that they had enough depth to retreat and keep fighting doesn't change the fact that the early defeats cost them valuable territory that they could no longer use for the war.

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

France was out produced by Germany in most industrial regards. Not sure where you are going with this.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Which is a wonderfully euphemistic way to talk about them retreating out of crucial agricultural and industrial areas. They were getting their ass kicked. The fact that they had enough depth to retreat and keep fighting doesn't change the fact that the early defeats cost them valuable territory that they could no longer use for the war.

Um my statement and yours are not mutaualky exclusive though. What I mean by breathing space, is that they were no longer in imminent danger of a total collapse like they were in 1941.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Well LL had a high impact in the situation in 1944, it helped the Soviets to maintain a very high operational tempo.

 

[Cavalry]

France was out produced by Germany in most industrial regards. .

not sure if Germany out produced France+British, but the point here is France didn't fight like her industrial strength may say, war is not decided by industrial strength alone.

 

[keynes2.0]

not sure if Germany out produced France+British, but the point here is France didn't fight like her industrial strength may say, war is not decided by industrial strength alone.

Sure it's not the only factor but applied industrial strength was probably the most significant factor. Artillery caused half the casualties. The fact that the Soviets received american supplies to make their shells and received american trucks to get those shells to the front was very important. The Soviet offensives in '43 and '44 didn't just come out of nowhere. You need modern equipment in order to conduct deep operations.

 

[holoween]

Actually industrial strength only tells you the maximim sustainable military power. Peak thrength can be significantly higher than that since its quite easy to simply save up equippment and ammo for some time.

 

[keynes2.0]

Actually industrial strength only tells you the maximim sustainable military power. Peak thrength can be significantly higher than that since its quite easy to simply save up equippment and ammo for some time.

And then the Germans invade you and you have a lot of useless T-26 tanks, I-15 aircraft and shells for 40 year old artillery pieces.

 

[holoween]

And then the Germans invade you and you have a lot of useless T-26 tanks, I-15 aircraft and shells for 40 year old artillery pieces.

well more usefull than a new pz2 and an arty shell is an arty shell no matter how old the gun is its being fired from.
also it dependas a bit on how long you save it up depending on how fast technology progresses.

 

[BBBD316]

I still say Stalin was quite happy to just play trader to the Germans and try to get influence over areas by pushing closer to the Germans and rebuilding his forces to the point that the Germans concede that they can not think of invasion.

If the Soviets had of been brought into the Axis they would have had Romania and Turkey handed over to them on a silver platter for what? Declaring war on the UK and commonwealth? Sounds like a good deal, UK bombers can't reach Moscow.

 

[Cavalry]

If the Soviets had of been brought into the Axis they would have had Romania and Turkey handed over to them on a silver platter for what? Declaring war on the UK and commonwealth? Sounds like a good deal, UK bombers can't reach Moscow.

If you are real Stalin you don't have to declare war to UK to demand Romania and Turkey!

By the way the trade is not profitable if you have to pour huge money into defense. The threat still exist and need to solve!

 

[BBBD316]

Well you do need to make sure that Romania and Turkey can't just hide under someone elses skirts. Had Stalin approached Turkey they would have either approached the Axis or Allies for protection.

With the Soviets in the Axis the Turks would have to hope that the UK alone could some how come to it's rescue and in mid '41 that is not really a possibility.

 

[yerm]

The UK would have tried. Churchill had a serious hardon for those straits.

 

[keynes2.0]

He had a hardon for them because the Ruskies were allies. The straits are useless if the Ruskies are the enemy.

 

[Maq]

Soviets weren't preparing to invade the Germany any time soon. Their army was in the process of reorganization and weren't deployed or even mobilized for the attack. Soviets of course had plans for invasion but these plans were very much theoretical at this point.
The idea that Barbarossa was a preemptive strike is a myth which based in how nazies justified their attack and nothing more.

I have read a book written by a military historian, and he came to conclusion that in the view of deployment and composition of Soviet army in June 1941, it has been in the midst of preparations for an imminent offensive action.
However, it is not a proof that Stalin was going to attack. More likely, the Soviet headquarters expected (based on intelligence) the German attack and planned instant counter-attack. Soviet doctrine was offensive, Stalin personally rejected any idea of a defensive war - of that sufficient evidence exists.

 

[CruelDwarf]

I have read a book written by a military historian, and he came to conclusion that in the view of deployment and composition of Soviet army in June 1941, it has been in the midst of preparations for an imminent offensive action.
However, it is not a proof that Stalin was going to attack. More likely, the Soviet headquarters expected (based on intelligence) the German attack and planned instant counter-attack. Soviet doctrine was offensive, Stalin personally rejected any idea of a defensive war - of that sufficient evidence exists.

A simple map. On which side of the border do you see an army preparing for the offensive?

 

[Maq]

A simple map. On which side of the border do you see an army preparing for the offensive?

I'm not a military expert. The guy who wrote the book was (he had studied a Soviet military academy, a.o.). He described in detail all units, their position, composition, etc. Those details were rather tiresome reading for me, and to large part I could not understand their meaning or significance. But I could understand his summary, and that's what I reproduced above.
The book was not aimed at any sensational 'discovery', and the author was careful to make far-reaching conclusions. Therefore, he rejected the idea that his research was a proof of imminent Soviet attack. He clearly preferred the explanation that the headquarters expected German attack, and believed they'd be able to crush it and launch a counter-offensive.
So, what I say clearly leaves open the possibility that Stalin did not plan a war against Germany at all, in other words, that no 'Counter-Barbarossa' existed.
(My opinion: Stalin expected the war to come, but played for time, he would prefer it coming a few years later. But when the German preparations for attack became clear, he ordered deployment of forces in accord with Soviet military doctrine, i.e. offensive one.)