German-Soviet Front

[Loke]

Other than WW1 and Russo-Japanese war, which war do you allude? Genuinely curious, not a sarcasm.

The Polish-Soviet war

 

[Adonnus]

Other than WW1 and Russo-Japanese war, which war do you allude? Genuinely curious, not a sarcasm.

Probably the Polish Soviet war

 

[GundamMerc]

I will just quote Sun Tsu
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

Proves the Germans never stood a iota of chance to win against the USSR.

That proves you like to throw around quotes in lieu of an argument.

 

[Adonnus]

That proves you like to throw around quotes in lieu of an argument.

Oh, speaking of which, you haven't mentioned the reasons why you think Germans stood a serious chance or any chance of winning the war...

 

[GundamMerc]

Oh, speaking of which, you haven't mentioned the reasons why you think Germans stood a serious chance or any chance of winning the war...

If you can't see that from what I've posted, nothing I say will suffice. Just because my reasons are insufficient for you, does not mean I made no argument.

 

[Mannstien]

Manstein is that you? I didn't know you were still alive and doing revisionism on forums.

Leave me out of that quote, everyone has an opinion on the turning point of the Germans war. Personally I think The Russians would have completed there secret build up by 42' filled their tank corps with more KV-1s and T-34 replacing the BT7 and T-26 and with an Airforce and Army by 42' most likely triple or quadruple the size of the Germans Stalin would have launched his own preemptive war. Some source state mid-July which is also a possibility as the Red Forces were still double and triple the size of the Germans but the non-aggression pact had not been signed yet with Japan and Stalin probably still would have felt uneasy moving his eastern forces west until Japan had attacked the US.

On the flip side I think even if Hitler and the General Staff knew at least much closer the actual size of the Red forces it would have given pause at least but Hitler felt it destiny to destroy the Soviet Union and as such would still have carried out Barbarossa.

So with that in mind and either way the Germans would have lost whether on the offense or defense, perhaps the only thing Hitlers invasion did was beat up the Red Army enough so that by the time it got to Berlin they weren't going to overrun the rest of Western Europe.

Stalin was as wily as the German dictator and the Red Army was the tool to free Westernn Europe.

Spoiler: Stalin's speech to the Politburo circa 39'

Perhaps the most revealing of these speeches is Stalin's address to a Politburo meeting on August 19, 1939. Delivered to an intimate circle of associates, it shows his astute but utterly cynical evaluation of political forces, and reveals his cunning foresight. (To this writer's knowledge, no American historian has yet taken public notice of this speech.)

In a secret address to his "inner circle" on August 19, 1939, Stalin said: "It is in the interest of the USSR – the workers' homeland – that war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French block. Everything should be done so that this drags out as long as possible with the goal of weakening both sides." The Soviet leader's plan to overwhelm Europe in a great military assault was dashed by Hitler's preemptive "Barbarossa" strike.

Stalin delivered this speech just as Soviet officials were negotiating with British and French representatives about a possible military alliance with Britain and France, and as German and Soviet officials were discussing a possible non-aggression pact between their countries. Four days after this speech, German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop met with Stalin in the Kremlin to sign the German-Soviet non-aggression pact.

It is important to point out here that Stalin could have prevented war in 1939 by agreeing to support Britain and France in their "guarantee" of support to Poland, or simply by announcing that the Soviet Union would firmly oppose any violation by Germany of Polish territory. He decided instead to give Hitler a "green light" to attack Poland, fully anticipating that Britain and France would then declare war on Germany, making the localized conflict into a full-scale, Europe-wide war.

In this speech, Stalin laid out his shrewd and calculating view of the European situation:

"The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance pact with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off from Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western powers. War would be avoided, but down the road events could become dangerous for the USSR. If we accept Germany's proposal and conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will of course invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England in that would be unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. Under those conditions, we would have a great opportunity to stay out of the conflict, and we could plan the opportune time for us to enter the war.

"The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough to seize power. The dictatorship of such a party will only become possible as the result of a major war.

"Our choice is clear. We must accept the German proposal and politely send the Anglo-French mission home. Our immediate advantage will be to take Poland to the gates of Warsaw, as well as Ukrainian Galicia ...

"For the realization of these plans it is essential that the war continue for a long as possible, and all forces, with which we are actively involved, should be directed toward this goal ...

"Let us consider a second possibility, that is, a victory by Germany... It is obvious that Germany will be too occupied elsewhere to turn against us. In a conquered France, the French Communist Party will be very strong. The Communist revolution will break out unavoidably, and we will be able to fully exploit this situation to come to the aid of France and make it our ally. In addition, all the nations that fall under the "protection" of a victorious Germany will also become our allies. This presents for us a broad field of action in which to develop the world revolution.

"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR -- the workers' homeland -- that war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French block. Everything should be done so that this drags out as long as possible with the goal of weakening both sides. For this reason, it is imperative that we agree to conclude the pact proposed by Germany, and then work that this war, which will one day be declared, is carried out after the greatest possible passage of time..."

The Soviet leader's daring calculation to use Germany as an "icebreaker" for war was, von Thadden says, "Stalin's trap."

A version of this speech has been known since 1939, but for decades it has been widely dismissed as a fraud. However, in 1994 Russian historians found an authoritative text of it in a special secret Soviet archive, and quickly published it in a prominent Russian scholarly journal, as well as in an academic publication of Novosibirsk University. note 7 Shortly after this August 1939 speech, von Thadden points out, Stalin ordered a two-year military mobilization plan, a massive project that culminated in the summer of 1941 with powerful Soviet forces poised to strike westwards against Germany and the rest of Europe.
7. A portion of this speech is quoted in part in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal of Historical Review, pp. 32-34, and in the July-August 1998 Journal, p. 31.

 

[Adonnus]

If you can't see that from what I've posted, nothing I say will suffice. Just because my reasons are insufficient for you, does not mean I made no argument.

Your reasons don't exist. You mentioned many things about the state of the Soviet army, all of which were correct, but then admitted that they overcame those difficulties gradually. In what universe would this not happen, or be irrelevant? I mean, maybe, by some odd, indirect standard you made an argument. Not one that holds any water. I agree with practically every judgement and fact you've posted so far, it's all historically accurate. But nothing you've said adds up to a German victory at any point. You could of course take that back.

 

[GundamMerc]

Your reasons don't exist. You mentioned many things about the state of the Soviet army, all of which were correct, but then admitted that they overcame those difficulties gradually. In what universe would this not happen, or be irrelevant? I mean, maybe, by some odd, indirect standard you made an argument. Not one that holds any water. I agree with practically every judgement and fact you've posted so far, it's all historically accurate. But nothing you've said adds up to a German victory at any point. You could of course take that back.

I'm assuming you missed the point where I spoke of Japan not fulfilling their part in the Anti-Comintern Pact?

 

[Adonnus]

Ok, let's say the Japanese attacked. From what I know the Kwangtung army was not really the best equipped formation in the Japanese army. They had a severe deficit of modern tanks and failed miserably at the battle of Khalkin Gol. The USSR had a large number of better equipped Siberian divisions, lets take that figure of 750,000 to be true. This attack was decided against by the IJA general staff due to these 2 difficulties mentioned just here, as well as this would mean they would need troops for 3 theaters. (China, SE Asia & Pacific and Far East Siberia). Attacking the USSR's far east wouldn't do anything for their oil situation, or give them rubber, which were some of the main reasons they decided to go south. Considering the balance of forces and the fact that many Japanese doctrines particularly infantry-artillery support were not up to Western standards it's unlikely they would have progressed nearly as well as the Germans did.

Assuming the USSR did use some tank forces on a large enough scale against the Japanese I have no idea how they'd be able to react to or defeat them.

Most of the Soviet industrial transfer was done to the centre of the country, not the Far East. Assuming the Siberian divisions can't be moved in place for the Battle of Moscow then.. like I said, best case for Germans, they take the city and the war continues into the next year and the year after that until the Soviets win. Taking Moscow doesn't suddenly turn the whole strategic balance in Germany's favour. And to suppose the Japanese seizing Vladivostok would do that is slightly more absurd.

 

[GundamMerc]

While I agree that the Japanese would not have the forces to successfully defeat the Soviet divisions stationed there, honestly they only need apply enough pressure to prevent them being redeployed. As for your assertion that the fall of Moscow does not change the strategic balance, I dispute that. The importance of that city is not the industry, though that certainly does have some merit, but in the fact that Moscow was the node point for the majority of the Soviet logistical system. If you take Moscow, you cut off much of the north and south of European Russia from each other. The Soviets would have had to build an entirely new network of logistics for their forces.

Not to mention the loss of Moscow would have further eroded Stalin's already unsteady political position circa 1941 due to the continued losses. I would posit the notion that if the Germans hadn't implemented their policy against "subhuman" slavs, they would have been welcomed by the populace as liberators (as was the case early in the eastern war before the reality tragically struck behind the front lines) and Stalin likely would have had to deal with both the war and a revolt/coup at the same time.

 

[Denkt]

I think a buildup for the German Soviet showdown may resemble something like this:

1. Germany take control over the countries its focus allows and allies with many facist and neutral countries.
2. Germany go to war with France or Poland and annex one or both of these countries, sometimes Germany may have allied Poland.
3. Soviet conquer the baltic countries and maybe Finland.
4. Germany and maybe Soviet conquer many minor nations.
5. Germany or Soviet declare war upon the other.

Germany will very likely have the production advantage as Germany and Soviet start with about equal amount of factories but Germany will get alot of factories from conquest. Soviet will have access to more manpower because you can not recruit much foreign manpower. I don't know how it will be with resources.

Doctrines:

• Germany starts with mobile warfare and the ai probably will not change doctrine but players may. Mobile warfare as the name say focus on mobility, to get from a to b so countries that use this doctrine have armies with very high org, very quick org recovery, speed increase to everything and fast planing. You get a choice between focusing more on infantry or more on tanks and you get a second choice between more manpower or even more org and recovery rate. It don't have much direct combat bonuses so if it can not use mobility to an advantage it will be at a big disadvantage against other doctrines.
• Soviet starts with mass assult which give a very wide variety of bonuses but you will have very low org compared to the mobile warfare doctrine. It is split into two large branches. Deep Battle can reduce the supply consumption by 20% which allow you to put 25% more battalions at the front also it reduce width of infantry by -0.4 so you can have 25% more infantry battalions in combat at the same time. Mass mobilization greatly increase the problem partisans cause for the enemy, give access to more manpower, reduce width of infantry by -0.4, greatly reduce the penalty for lacking supplies and give infantry very quick recovery.

Germany's high org divisions should be able to push Soviet's low org divisions but Soviet will be able to field more divisions at the front and if Soviet can keep Germany's divisions from recovering their org the tide should turn into Soviets favor. For Germany it is important not to get into a situation in which your divisions are constantly being in combat because they can not recover org and while you can move some divisions behind the front, this is risky as these divisions still consume supply points and the extra 25% divisions Soviet can bring as well as the -0.4 infantry width will quickly take its toll. Bad weather probably will effect Germany alot worse then Soviet because of the nature of their doctrines.

You can see the exact know bonuses of each doctrine here.
http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Research#Grand_Battleplan_doctrine

 

[danoh]

As for your assertion that the fall of Moscow does not change the strategic balance, I dispute that. The importance of that city is not the industry, though that certainly does have some merit, but in the fact that Moscow was the node point for the majority of the Soviet logistical system. If you take Moscow, you cut off much of the north and south of European Russia from each other. The Soviets would have had to build an entirely new network of logistics for their forces.

Not to mention the loss of Moscow would have further eroded Stalin's already unsteady political position circa 1941 due to the continued losses. I would posit the notion that if the Germans hadn't implemented their policy against "subhuman" slavs, they would have been welcomed by the populace as liberators (as was the case early in the eastern war before the reality tragically struck behind the front lines) and Stalin likely would have had to deal with both the war and a revolt/coup at the same time.

I agree with this analysis and one can make a similar argument for Leningrad. Hitler's thinking was that he didn't want to feed the Leningrad population so he surrounded the city and tried to starve it to death. Seriously. . . Of course the whole German gamble was on a short single summer campaign, and most of the military experts in nearly every country at the time expected that would happen. Knowing what we know the Germans could have planned for a longer war including a smarter defensive battle in the first winter, and grabbed all the Baltic ports quickly to greatly improve logistics in the north.

Supply by sea is apparently much more efficient than by road or rail, and I wonder if that sort of sea-route logistics advantage will be reflected in HoI4.

 

[ComradeCommissar]

The question is: How would Germany take Moscow, to those who preach about them not making these disproved "mistakes"? They had under strength divisions, not enough supplies at the front, they were overextended and had not even made it half of the way to encircling Moscow due to the heroes at Tula and Kashira holding them back. And when they do, how will they hold their encirclement?

Let's look at the simple facts: Moscow is a far larger city than Stalingrad where the Germans grinded up the 6th Army. It is full of concrete buildings and prepared defenses and it is the Soviet capital. It is going to be hard to dislodge defenders from this city, especially if patriotic citizens take to its defense, even with bricks and pitchforks. The Soviets will have fallen back on their supplies while the Germans have outran theirs - and as we have seen throughout the whole war, you need lots of shells and bullets to take a fortified, determined urban defender. In Stalingrad the Germans even had air superiority to dampen the effects of Soviet artillery and strafe enemy soldiers. Here there is no such advantage.

And when the Moscow counteroffensive comes, it will smash the super overextended Heer as it did in real life especially if they are across the Moscow-Volga Canal. Instead of marching on Red Square as victors, Landsers will be marching as prisoners, booed by crowds of Muscovites.

And that is not to mention if the Soviets funnel in troops to Moscow's defense. Considering it's status, I don't think there will be any shortage of volunteers.

 

[MGL 86]

If Germans had reached Moscow with full strength divisions (!!!), the following street battle of Moscow would make Stalingrad battle look like a training march.

Also it seems like Red Army soldiers have advantage in street fighting, night battles, close quarter combat.

 

[shri]

That proves you like to throw around quotes in lieu of an argument.

This proves that-
Germany did not win, Germany did not have a chance of winning, Germany couldn't have won even with some outlandish theories like the Japanese attacking.
Why? I already mentioned the 700000+ troops and Khalkin Gol, why did the Japanese lose to the USSR at Khalkin Gol? Because the USSR had 2X the Guns, 3X the Planes and 4X the Tanks of the Japanese and they overwhelmed the Japanese with superior fire-power. I highly doubt, round 2 will be any different.

 

[shri]

The Polish-Soviet war

Not really, why?
It was Poland which decided first to invade and conquer Ukraine, the Red Army did a counter-attack which spectacularly failed at the gates of Warsaw but the original objective of Ukraine was WON by the USSR.

Considering the megalomania of Pilsudski-

"Closed within the boundaries of the 16th century, cut off from the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, deprived of land and mineral wealth of the South and Southeast, Russia could easily move into the status of second-grade power. Poland as the largest and strongest of new states, could easily establish a sphere of influence stretching from Finland to the Caucasus"

I would say, the USSR did well.

 

[Loke]

Not really, why?
It was Poland which decided first to invade and conquer Ukraine, the Red Army did a counter-attack which spectacularly failed at the gates of Warsaw but the original objective of Ukraine was WON by the USSR.

Considering the megalomania of Pilsudski-

"Closed within the boundaries of the 16th century, cut off from the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, deprived of land and mineral wealth of the South and Southeast, Russia could easily move into the status of second-grade power. Poland as the largest and strongest of new states, could easily establish a sphere of influence stretching from Finland to the Caucasus"

I would say, the USSR did well.

I would say the new state(1 year old) of Poland did awesome by beating the great power - Russia/USSR.

 

[shri]

I would say the new state(1 year old) of Poland did awesome by beating the great power - Russia/USSR.

Russia wasn't a great Power in 1919-1921, the Tsardom was destroyed, a massive civil war ending in 1921 with the death of over 5 million+ was ongoing and in addition, British, French, Japanese and American troops were invading the USSR, under these circumstances the Polish invaded Ukraine and in conjunction with some Ukrainians established a new state, the USSR fought back and by end of 1921, except Finland and Poland had swallowed back all its old client states and rebel areas.
Under the extreme circumstances and led by an exiled man more famous for his chess matches in Vienna than Infantry charges (Lev Davidovich Bronstein aka Trotsky), the Reds did well. After all the Reds were only 2 years old.
When the one-eyed fights a group of blind, things get exciting.

 

[Loke]

Russia wasn't a great Power in 1919-1921, the Tsardom was destroyed, a massive civil war ending in 1921 with the death of over 5 million+ was ongoing and in addition, British, French, Japanese and American troops were invading the USSR, under these circumstances the Polish invaded Ukraine and in conjunction with some Ukrainians established a new state, the USSR fought back and by end of 1921, except Finland and Poland had swallowed back all its old client states and rebel areas.
Under the extreme circumstances and led by an exiled man more famous for his chess matches in Vienna than Infantry charges (Lev Davidovich Bronstein aka Trotsky), the Reds did well. After all the Reds were only 2 years old.
When the one-eyed fights a group of blind, things get exciting.

Not really, the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania gained its freedom. Still Russia/USSR lost 3 different wars vs 3 different nations 20+ years before Barbarossa. Russia also had significant trouble vs the small nation of Finland so the outcome Germany vs Russia/USSR was not certain.

 

[jcd000]

If Germans had reached Moscow with full strength divisions (!!!), the following street battle of Moscow would make Stalingrad battle look like a training march.

Also it seems like Red Army soldiers have advantage in street fighting, night battles, close quarter combat.

They'd have to, it being their city and they being defending.


But i will say that the fall of Moskow should mean victory for Germany, if they can hold it and supply their army there.
The fact that this proved to be impossible (even with minimal LL and the Germans already being impressively victorious until then) should prove that there was no real chance to beat SU that way (by war in '41)


On the quite interesting what-if Stalin invades topic, i think that Stalin would like to do exactly that. But unlike Hitler (a gambler) he was very cautious and cunning to do that without being certain to win. He would only attack Germany if it was still at war with the allies and the SU had an overwhelming land advantage. Only this way he could justify his gains and not go to war with the allies.

This means that a non-overly-militaristic Germany that does not seek to expand through war (lower buildup and stopping right after getting Sudetenland?), aligning with the Allies would prevent any Stalin invasion plans. (they *would* align with the allies if the SU outnumbered them 3:1 and was clear to be focusing on them)

Also, i'm not at all convinced that Stalin would ever have the overwhelming advantage he needed. Germany on the defensive would bleed the Russians white, while them being the invaders would lose them the advantage of a united national effort.