"German Military Incompetence Through Italian Eyes" James J. Sadkovich

[Mr. Wiggles]

With the information they had at the time the Germans thought it could be possible with air superiority. With the information we have today, we know it would not have been possible.



If Hitler wasn't going to attack Russia, Stalin would eventually have attacked Germany. Let's not forget that because of the Allied blockade, Germany was dependent on Russian resources. In a world where Hitler never invades Russia and instead fortifies Germany's eastern frontier, Stalin continues expanding the Russian military until he thinks it's ready for war, then cuts exports to Germany and swoops in for the kill. Once the war had started, it was either kill the Bear or get killed by it.



To be fair, Italy didn't perform well in WW1 either.

The sage reports the point of view of italian attachès, diplomats and fascist politicians who interacted with the germans. It focuses on the diplomatic and strategic side of the war. You should read it before asking questions which require long and articulated answers, because many of them are out of topic. No one is saying Italy performed well in ww2, overall.

You are saying that Nazis had to attack russia before russia would have attacked them (no one can prove it was a certainty, and Stalin expected to be attacked and not be the attacker) This is after 1940. Before attacking Poland Germany did not even shared a border with the URRS, so saying "he feared a soviet attack" dot is missing the whole framework. What happened before that: Hitler (and the other nazis, and the german high command) were idiots blinded by a racist ideology, first they alienated the US simpathy, then they managed to get HUGE territoral concessions, then they declared war on Poland effectively entering a war Germany could hardly win, because he planned to enter in an even more difficult war, because he wanted to kill slavs (and many others) and take their land.
Not exactly the best long term plan.

 

[Zauberelefant]

[QUOTE="Bki, post: 26632057, member: 530972]
Not really, you don't need to be particularly competent to realize that others are also not so.
[/QUOTE]

Judging from the millions of virologists and epidemiologists that suddenly appeared in the last weeks, I would contest this position.

 

[Zauberelefant]

[QUOTE="Bki, post: 26632057, member: 530972]
Not really, you don't need to be particularly competent to realize that others are also not so.
[/QUOTE]

Judging from the millions of virologists and epidemiologists that suddenly appeared in the last weeks, I would contest this position.

 

[Fulmen]

You should read it before asking questions which require long and articulated answers

I didn't ask any. And while I haven't logged in on that site to read the entire thing (I did read the first page which was visible), that's not relevant because my reply had nothing to do with Italy, besides the last remark about WW1 performance. Though maybe it is that remark which you are referring to.

and Stalin expected to be attacked and not be the attacker

Don't know where you're coming from with this. The Red Army precisely expected to be attacking, not defending, as per their doctrine. All their war games against a perceived German threat operated on the premise that the fighting would be on what was then German-held territory.

As for Stalin's expectations, he expected a rerun of WW1 on the Western Front where both Germany and the Allies exhaust themselves, ripe for Soviet conquest. This of course was ruined by the quick Fall of France.

Before attacking Poland Germany did not even shared a border with the URRS, so saying "he feared a soviet attack" dot is missing the whole framework.

Not what I said. I said once the war began, it was either fight Russia and win, or be defeated by her; kill the bear or be killed by it.

Had Hitler stopped in the summer of 1939 and not taken a step further on the road to war, Russia would've chosen to side with the Allies, who were also offering an alliance together with secret clauses with "guaranteed nations" (spheres of influence). Stalin of course would still have acted on his new sphere in the name of "security", which opens a whole new can of worms on how the war may have began.

Honestly Hitler's best bet would've been to stop at Munich, and then work out any other territorial grievances through negotiation with the Allies, but then he wouldn't have been Hitler.

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

Don't know where you're coming from with this. The Red Army precisely expected to be attacking, not defending, as per their doctrine. All their war games against a perceived German threat operated on the premise that the fighting would be on what was then German-held territory.

The main source of "USSR wanted to attack first" is Rezun, who is not a historian. And all Rezun's claims have been heavily criticized by David Glantz, who IS a historian and an expert on WWII. And "The Red Army precisely expected to be attacking, not defending, as per their doctrine" does not equal to "was going to attack Germany"

 

[SophieX]

The main source of "USSR wanted to attack first" is Rezun, who is not a historian. And all Rezun's claims have been heavily criticized by David Glantz, who IS a historian and an expert on WWII. And "The Red Army precisely expected to be attacking, not defending, as per their doctrine" does not equal to "was going to attack Germany"

Reputation is not always the garantuee for being right....
the interpretation of historical "facts/situations" is likely to be affected a personal ( or political, idiological ) point of view.

 

[Fulmen]

The main source of "USSR wanted to attack first" is Rezun, who is not a historian. And all Rezun's claims have been heavily criticized by David Glantz, who IS a historian and an expert on WWII. And "The Red Army precisely expected to be attacking, not defending, as per their doctrine" does not equal to "was going to attack Germany"

I don't think you understand the context here. The Red Army doctrine was based on attack, consequently all wargames they held against a perceived German threat concluded they'd be attacking into Germany and German-held Poland within days of the start of the conflict. If war came with Germany, the Russians were expecting to be on the offensive.

 

[valentin4]

I don't think you understand the context here. The Red Army doctrine was based on attack, consequently all wargames they held against a perceived German threat concluded they'd be attacking into Germany and German-held Poland within days of the start of the conflict. If war came with Germany, the Russians were expecting to be on the offensive.

Yes their doctrine was based on immediate counter-offensive. The battle of Dubno (Brody) shows that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brody_(1941)

 

[FindFloppies]

I don't think you understand the context here. The Red Army doctrine was based on attack, consequently all wargames they held against a perceived German threat concluded they'd be attacking into Germany and German-held Poland within days of the start of the conflict. If war came with Germany, the Russians were expecting to be on the offensive.

So you're saying the Soviet wargames were 'rigged' and didn't examine possibilities that the commanders didn't want to talk about? Sort of like the wargaming of Midway by the IJN, where unpleasant possibilities were ruled impossible and ignored?

 

[mursolini]

The main source of "USSR wanted to attack first" is Rezun, who is not a historian. And all Rezun's claims have been heavily criticized by David Glantz, who IS a historian and an expert on WWII. And "The Red Army precisely expected to be attacking, not defending, as per their doctrine" does not equal to "was going to attack Germany"

I think there is confusion, so let`s clarify. Rezun`s claim, was that USSR was going to attack Germany in summer 1941, which, is very questionable.

However, the broader conclusion that red army was build as an offensive structure is pretty clear. From it`s laser-focus on armor and mechanized formations, it`s initial inability to defend anything, which is quite surprising, considering they almost had 2 years to fortify various points on German-Soviet border, and prepare an elaborate defense, which they never did. Soviet infrastructure, unlike France is much more lacking, hence quite extensive defense of logistical choke points was actually feasible. They had 2 year to turn every large city into Brest fortress type of siege, and both Soviet defense of Odessa, Sevastopol and German defense of Breslau, Kenigsberg, and several other "festungs" shows just how badly Germans could fare, if Soviets prepared their defense, as opposed to wasting their troops in counter-offensives.

Yes their doctrine was based on immediate counter-offensive. The battle of Dubno (Brody) shows that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brody_(1941)

Immediate counter-offensive in case Germans attack, however that was quite resent thing. Before Fall of France, there was no reason for soviets to expect German attack, at all, and in case of German-Soviet war, Soviets would have to be the aggressor. Red army was perfectly suited to be that, just look at the amount of tanks it built.

So you're saying the Soviet wargames were 'rigged' and didn't examine possibilities that the commanders didn't want to talk about? Sort of like the wargaming of Midway by the IJN, where unpleasant possibilities were ruled impossible and ignored?

Considering Soviet "very successful" invasion of Finland, and later execution in Barbarossa, it could be anything, their military could vastly over-estimate it`s strength, or just plain old "every one is a yes-man" because everyone remembers repressions, or incompetence due to chain of command kicked up too fast, and general Red army expanding in size way faster then it`s available competent officers.

 

[Volodio]

Don't know where you're coming from with this. The Red Army precisely expected to be attacking, not defending, as per their doctrine. All their war games against a perceived German threat operated on the premise that the fighting would be on what was then German-held territory.

There is a huge difference between military doctrine and international diplomacy. Their doctrine meant that they expected to be on the offensive in any war, including a defensive one. They were confidant they could launch counter-offensives even when being attacked. But it doesn't mean that they were preparing for an imminent offensive war against Germany. The Soviet doctrine was slowly built over years, it wasn't instantly adopted in 1940 because of the diplomatic situation at the time.

 

[Fulmen]

But it doesn't mean that they were preparing for an imminent offensive war against Germany.

No-one here is saying that. The point was if Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin, Stalin would have attacked Hitler, eventually. Not imminently.

 

[Zauberelefant]

No-one here is saying that. The point was if Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin, Stalin would have attacked Hitler, eventually. Not imminently.

I guess only in case the western Powers stood to lose against Hitler. Apparently Stalin felt safe as long as Hitler was in a war with britain and dependent on russian raw Material.

 

[kettyo]

I guess only in case the western Powers stood to lose against Hitler. Apparently Stalin felt safe as long as Hitler was in a war with britain and dependent on russian raw Material.

I highly doubt it as Stalin's USSR preferred the vulture strategy, attacking the ones who are much weaker or dying. They didn't even attack Poland until it was already done. I highly doubt they had attacked Germany in their height, close to defeat the Allies. In that case they would rather have tried to get pieces of the Allies cake.

Attacking Germany would only have been possible if they got mortally wounded in their fight with the Allies. Otherwise it's totally certain Stalin pursued peace with Germany at all costs.

 

[SophieX]

I highly doubt it as Stalin's USSR preferred the vulture strategy, attacking the ones who are much weaker or dying. They didn't even attack Poland until it was already done. I highly doubt they had attacked Germany in their height, close to defeat the Allies. In that case they would rather have tried to get pieces of the Allies cake.

Sounds good and reasonable.

But we don't know, how Stalin considered a country to be "much weaker"; we don't know which weight he gave to the specific factotrs regarding strength or weakness ( numbers of soldiers, education, doctrines, equipment, capabilities, logistics etc.... )

We mostly know the "results" of historical events, we are looking backwards with this knowledges, which often leads to conclusions, which people in those times couldn't take into account.
Looking into future is quite different

I do not say you are wrong, my intention is to show, that other opinions could be also as reasonable as yours.

 

[kettyo]

I do not say you are wrong, my intention is to show, that other opinions could be also as reasonable as yours.

Of course that's true.

We can only base on actual happenings and draw conclusions from them. These conclusions might not be totally correct for all applications but nothing else we can do

 

[Fulmen]

I guess only in case the western Powers stood to lose against Hitler. Apparently Stalin felt safe as long as Hitler was in a war with britain and dependent on russian raw Material.

It's hard to see a scenario where the Western Allies lose to Germany. Sealion wasn't a possibility, Germany was blockaded, losing the Battle of the Atlantic, and the US was getting involved. Meanwhile there were already signs of a Russo-German rift from the Russian side in the form of exorbitant demands made by Molotov to Hitler in Berlin in November 1940, and in the form of supporting the anti-German coup in Yugoslavia in 1941 in a bid to strengthen the USSR's position in the Balkans.

The clock was ticking for Germany. Stalin simply needed to wait, build up his forces, and when he felt strong enough, cut the exports to Germany and attack.

 

[Zauberelefant]

It's hard to see a scenario where the Western Allies lose to Germany. Sealion wasn't a possibility, Germany was blockaded, losing the Battle of the Atlantic, and the US was getting involved. Meanwhile there were already signs of a Russo-German rift from the Russian side in the form of exorbitant demands made by Molotov to Hitler in Berlin in November 1940, and in the form of supporting the anti-German coup in Yugoslavia in 1941 in a bid to strengthen the USSR's position in the Balkans.

The clock was ticking for Germany. Stalin simply needed to wait, build up his forces, and when he felt strong enough, cut the exports to Germany and attack.

If he saw that as an Option. I tend to think that russian geopolitics basically remained the same from the 1800s to today - satellite the neighbourhood, access the black sea and indian ocean, do not create an effective coalition against these plans.