German-Soviet Front

[Viktor_Vertex]

Opinionated people, i want your opinion.
Say Japan decides to get in the war and attack the Soviets. What effect do you think would their navy have in stopping LL help to the soviets from the east? Even if Japan can't hold ports, their navy can just flatten the whole city the port is in, and/or set up blockades. This means that LL would have to come either from that port in the north which could, with help of the Finnish airports be destroyed/captured. LL would have to go through... Persia ? at that point. Anyway, removing LL from the game would significantly worsen Soviet logistics.(Trucks and trains, food and stuff). This would mean that taking Moscow could actually be a crippling blow.

 

[Viktor_Vertex]

Stuff that may have helped enough in combination to make Axis victory possible.
1- Axis cooperation especially between Germany and Japan
2-Battle of Britain- just don't do it
3-Japan ignoring China and focusing on the Soviets. If Soviets are ultimately defeated, nobody is going to stop them from doing what they want with China. This would be problematic regarding their industry, but soviet victory in Europe would be even more problematic.
4- Start exterminating populations of occupied lands AFTER the war is won, unless there is something I am missing ? Was there not enough food ? Surely any labor that can be extracted would be more valuable during the war. Also this would increase the number of anti-soviet volunteers.

 

[jcd000]

4- Start exterminating populations of occupied lands AFTER the war is won, unless there is something I am missing ? Was there not enough food ? Surely any labor that can be extracted would be more valuable during the war. Also this would increase the number of anti-soviet volunteers.

In the context that all conquered countries were starved (sure, not to same extent, depending on who they where), i don't believe a much better treatment of occupied lands could happen, the Nazis being Nazis.

Also, if better treatment means not milking the occupied countries for all the resources (food, ores, oil, industry) they have, what IS the point of invading, and how can Germany sustain their war economy?

 

[Viktor_Vertex]

Also, if better treatment means not milking the occupied countries for all the resources (food, ores, oil, industry) they have, what IS the point of invading, and how can Germany sustain their war economy?

Not so much better treatment as "not exterminating". Semi-forced labor can be used to gain labor/resources.
Example, nationalize all food production and farms but make it clear its only during the war and start partitioning land to farmers for the future, to gain some credibility. Make food purchaseable only by state issued 'tickets' which can be obtained only by working in industry/mines/construction/military service. You get the point.
Whatever is done after the war and if promises are actually kept is irrelevant for this discussion.

I'm unsure if we are allowed to discuss this however, so I would like not to continue talking about details.
Just keep in mind that Germany didn't use the 'harshest' occupation policy represented in the game, they purposefully used depopulation policies, which is... wasteful to say the least(since they were lacking labor, manpower, industrial production and agricultural production, all of which is useful to the occupators and acceptable to the occupees), at least during the war.

If you are a civilian in an occupied country, you are less likely to rebel if you are given semi-fair work given the circumstances than if you are starving and witnessing depopulation policies.

 

[Opanashc]

You're a person on the internet claiming these things. Nice try. Also, you realize that the purge was still ongoing during this time, and only exacerbated an existing issue. Also, human memory is fickle at best, and your relatives will likely remember the more positive memory (coming together to fight a common foe) over the more negative (oppression by own government). It's the same reason why people constantly say old music is best, even though over a specific time period there is an equal amount of crappy music made as in another time period, it just gets filtered out by our minds. There are many studies on this phenomenon and it has been shown to exist as a societal bias.

Oh they remember being oppressed, alright. My grandmother told me, how in 1953 for example, she called her father, and asked him about Beria being the Enemy of the People - right after he was overthrown in a coup, and how her father rushed home to silence her, because he has not heard the announcement yet.
Thing is, just because they were oppressed, does not mean they did not support the government. A lot of people remembered how life was under the Tsars - and it quality of life increased in the 30s by a great margin. Families remembered infant mortality rates of 43% at the beginning of the century, and so forth. Sure, life was not as good like in USA, but then again, USA did not have such destruction wrecked upon it by WW1 and civil war.
Purge ground to a halt, with Beria taking over in late 1938. Arrests of 1941 (Pavlov and Rychagov) were for a separate matter entirely.

 

[Loke]

Oh they remember being oppressed, alright. My grandmother told me, how in 1953 for example, she called her father, and asked him about Beria being the Enemy of the People - right after he was overthrown in a coup, and how her father rushed home to silence her, because he has not heard the announcement yet.
Thing is, just because they were oppressed, does not mean they did not support the government. A lot of people remembered how life was under the Tsars - and it quality of life increased in the 30s by a great margin. Families remembered infant mortality rates of 43% at the beginning of the century, and so forth. Sure, life was not as good like in USA, but then again, USA did not have such destruction wrecked upon it by WW1 and civil war.
Purge ground to a halt, with Beria taking over in late 1938. Arrests of 1941 (Pavlov and Rychagov) were for a separate matter entirely.

Quailty of life for most people increased during the 20th century, atleast in the Western world. If Russia and its satellites, after WWII, had joined the western democracies instead of building their own "militarized/ideological world", I am sure life would have become alot better for the people in those nations than it did historicaly.

 

[Adonnus]

Ohoh. Someone even started a thread about why Western allied AI is the most important part of the game

*One of the most important parts. Never said the Soviet/German AI wasn't important, it totally is. But while those AI's worked in a rudimentary sort of way the Wallies were rarely able to do anything after a successful Barbarossa.

 

[Opanashc]

Quailty of life for most people increased during the 20th century, atleast in the Western world. If Russia and its satellites, after WWII, had joined the western democracies instead of building their own "militarized/ideological world", I am sure life would have become alot better for the people in those nations than it did historicaly.

Err, doubt it. Western world wanted domination. The welfare of Western world did not appear out of goodness of the hearts of its governments - it appeared as an answer to workers revolution. You know - give the masses something, so the powers that be keep theirs. It was inevitable, but appearance of USSR quickened the process by a lot.
India joined the Western democracies - I don't see them living so well. Then there is countries like Brazil and Mexico. Definitely democracies, definitely not living like they do in US/France/name any other Western Democracy. How about Yugoslavia? Bombed by Western democracies and for what? Dictatorship in South Korea springs strongly to mind, when talking about Western Democracy. What did FDR say about General Somoza, junta leader in Nicaragua? "Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". Why did US support dictators in South America? Wasn't democracy better? Maybe, because if democracy was allowed there in those times, communists would be elected to power?
It had nothing to do with ideology. Tsarist Russia was portrayed as the enemy of the western world since time of Ivan IV. USSR and Russia today was no different. West does not care what political/economic system is in place in Russia much. It cares, when Russia does not bend to the will of the West.

 

[shri]

India joined the Western democracies - I don't see them living so well.

OH! Big factual blunder, considering that out of the first 42 years of independence, it was ruled for 38 years by one family who were totally slavish loyal to the USSR, in-fact the Mitrokhin archives have positively confirmed the fact that the KGB knew and affected Indira Gandhi and her Father's policies much more than several Cabinet ministers.
Another Fact: India holds the dubious distinction of electing the first communist government in the world and that government went on to rule a state in India for 37 years and so badly, that today the State's economic indices are below the rapacious colonial times (a real wonder).
It was only after abandoning the soviets and looking towards the USA that India has started improving. The soviets sold India substandard machinery and weapons at exorbitant prices and in-addition at both ends (Indian and Soviet) there was massive corruption of over 10% at each end.
Please do not pass judgement on things you do not know or understand.

EDIT: The only advantage of the Soviet alignment was, we in India (the children) got to read translated versions of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Pushkin and Turgenev on the dirt cheap prices.

P.S: The USA may have done a lot of wrong, but in the end the USA's policies have certain positives which have enabled it to evolve into a much improved version, the same cannot be said of Communist policies at all.

 

[shri]

Tsarist Russia was portrayed as the enemy of the western world since time of Ivan IV

This is oversimplification of Historical fact, (i am not an expert here, but have read enough Russian and Western histories through secondary sources)-

In nearly half the wars since Ivan the Grozny, the Russian Tsars were fighting aligned with one of the great powers of Europe- England, Prussia, France or Austria.

Eg:
Napoleonic Wars: - Russia was in coalition with Prussia, Austria and England.
WW1: Coalition with England and France
7 years War: Coalition with France and Austria
War of Austrian Succession: Coalition with Austria
War of Polish Succession: Coalition with Prussia and Austria
Partitions of Poland (3 or was it 4 including the MR pact?) : Coalition with Prussia and Austria and later with Germany
Rebellions of 1848: Coalition with Austria.
So on and so forth.

there were 2 major times when Russia got cornered - (I ignore the Crimean War as it was a defensive pact)
After the death of Ivan the Grozny starting the "Times of Troubles" equivalent to "Black Death or 30 year war episodes for the Germanic States" and
Post the collapse of USSR.
(both these episodes were partly self inflicted due to lack of a legitimate Heir to the Throne/lack of Legitimate transfer of power to a new Government).

Russia has always tried to align itself with the central European powers esp. Germanic states in its past history and a similar alignment in the future will bode well for Russia and Germany.

 

[Loke]

Err, doubt it. Western world wanted domination. The welfare of Western world did not appear out of goodness of the hearts of its governments - it appeared as an answer to workers revolution. You know - give the masses something, so the powers that be keep theirs. It was inevitable, but appearance of USSR quickened the process by a lot.
India joined the Western democracies - I don't see them living so well. Then there is countries like Brazil and Mexico. Definitely democracies, definitely not living like they do in US/France/name any other Western Democracy. How about Yugoslavia? Bombed by Western democracies and for what? Dictatorship in South Korea springs strongly to mind, when talking about Western Democracy. What did FDR say about General Somoza, junta leader in Nicaragua? "Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". Why did US support dictators in South America? Wasn't democracy better? Maybe, because if democracy was allowed there in those times, communists would be elected to power?
It had nothing to do with ideology. Tsarist Russia was portrayed as the enemy of the western world since time of Ivan IV. USSR and Russia today was no different. West does not care what political/economic system is in place in Russia much. It cares, when Russia does not bend to the will of the West.

Hmm, strange that all these "new" western nations in just a few years have become so successeful.
Let me show you the World Banks GDP/Capita; everyone of these former Russian satellites and from the same "militarized/ideological world" now has a GDP/per capita that exceeds Russia.

Slovakia
Czech Republic
Poland
Estonia
Lithuania
Latvia
Slovenia
Hungary
Kazakhstan

You also mention India and Nicaragua; they have an economical growth rate of 7.3%(14th India) and 4%(62nd Nicaragua) compared to;
Russia that has a negative growth rate of -3.9%(213th). (214th South Sudan, 216th Libya and on place 219th we have Syria).
India is doing very well.

Conclusion; some of these nations are successful and some are not, I wonder why.

 

[SDSkinner]

Err, doubt it. Western world wanted domination. The welfare of Western world did not appear out of goodness of the hearts of its governments - it appeared as an answer to workers revolution. You know - give the masses something, so the powers that be keep theirs. It was inevitable, but appearance of USSR quickened the process by a lot.

That is a bit misleading. For example in the US a lot of the improvement of quality of life had nothing to do with government action- black per capita income grew faster than white per capita income during the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

India joined the Western democracies - I don't see them living so well. Then there is countries like Brazil and Mexico. Definitely democracies, definitely not living like they do in US/France/name any other Western Democracy.

India was horribly mismanaged. Mexico wasn't actually democratic until the 1980s- its history is like a version of the USSR but with a lot less killing. Brazil went in and out of dictatorship and military rule.

How about Yugoslavia? Bombed by Westsrn democracies and for what?

That was post cold war; Clinton was trying to suck up to Muslims.

Dictatorship in South Korea springs strongly to mind, when talking about Western Democracy.

Most of the third world allies for both sides were dictatorships.

What did FDR say about General Somoza, junta leader in Nicaragua? "Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch".

FDR died in 1945. Somoza didn't graduate from college until 1946. I think you are referring to a different president.

Why did US support dictators in South America? Wasn't democracy better? Maybe, because if democracy was allowed there in those times, communists would be elected to power?

In some of the countries, yes. In others its... complicated. Argentina and Brazil had the military seize power to counter populists.

It had nothing to do with ideology. Tsarist Russia was portrayed as the enemy of the western world since time of Ivan IV. USSR and Russia today was no different. West does not care what political/economic system is in place in Russia much. It cares, when Russia does not bend to the will of the West.

http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/85739.htm
1854-1855: American Humanitarian Efforts in Crimean War
Spurred by reports from Thomas Cottman regarding the terrible conditions on the warfront, American doctors traveled to the front in Russia to treat casualties of the Crimean War in 1854 and 1855.
September-December 1863: Visits by Russian Imperial Navy
During the Civil War, Russian naval ships sailed to New York in late 1863 to demonstrate Russia's naval capability and its growing support for the North. More importantly, this was a strategic move in anticipation of a possible war with the British following the recent Polish uprising against Russian rule. By staging visits to U.S. ports, the Russian Navy aimed to relocate a number of its ships so that they would not be trapped in the Baltic Sea in the event of war in Europe. New York celebrated the visitors in style, with lavish social events, parades, and military reviews. The ships eventually called on the ports of Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, and Annapolis, and traveled as far south as Alexandria. Russian officers entertained members of the U.S. Cabinet and Congress on board. A separate Pacific squadron visited California.
1877-1878: U.S. Assistance during the Russo-Turkish War
Turkish action against Slavs in the Balkans led to armed conflict between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The United States supplied Russia with naval ships and weapons. U.S. newspaper correspondents provided regular coverage of the war for American readers.
1891-1893: Russian Famine
Widespread famine afflicted Russia in 1891-1893, particularly the area around Odessa and the Volga and Tambov regions, after a succession of poor harvests. American humanitarian organizations stepped forward with significant donations. After initial resistance to accepting outside aid, the Russian autocracy organized a special committee led by the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Nicholas, to coordinate relief. The famine also served to encourage further Russian emigration to the United States.
1921-1923: Great Famine Widespread famine in Russia, exacerbated by war and political upheaval, took the lives of over seven million people from 1921-1923. Despite the absence of official relations between the United States and Russia, the U.S. Government extended considerable relief to the Russian people.

The Russian Empire was considered a friend and possible ally of the United States. We had common enemies (the UK and latter Germany), compatible goals, synergetic abilities (Russia had a strong military, the US had a strong economy) and a mutual interest in the artic.

 

[shri]

During the Civil War, Russian naval ships sailed to New York in late 1863 to demonstrate Russia's naval capability and its growing support for the North.

Actually in that instance, Lincoln's govt was under Pressure from the Anglo-French Alliance to stop the war and reach a favourable negotiated end of the War with the South (Negotiation in favour of the South. ) Britain was dependent on Southern Cotton for its Manchester Mills and France's Sugar Economy was closely tied with the South's Tobbaco Planters. If you remember: Just a couple of years post the Civil War, the same Tsar Alexander II (called Tsar Liberator) sold Alaska to Lincoln's successors instead of the British.

The Arrival of the Russian Fleet was a show of strength in favour of the USA and boosted morale for Lincoln. The Russian Baltic Fleet did not have the "Fear of Being Sunk" as Kronstadt naval base was an even stronger one than the Legendary Sevastopol. In the Crimean War, the British did try to force the Northern Port and failed, in WW1 the Germans also did not have much success. Even in WW2 the Nazis didn't have success.

Though by 1900s Russia and USA were starting to become enemies, this is proved by the -
Wall Street Financing of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War, though Teddy Roosevelt did allow Russia to save face in the peace treaties that followed.

 

[BobbyDylan]

The Soviets on their own crushed the minor Axis Allies of Europe.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

[shri]

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Grow up and stop being a goat.

 

[BobbyDylan]

Grow up and stop being a goat.

 

[shri]

That goat and you can keep it up all night saying the catch phrase - Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

[Viktor_Vertex]

Guys, this is a thread about WWII, and there are interesting opinions and facts presented here. I learned a lot and enjoy this thread. Please take your goats to Australia to fight the in the Great Goat-Emu War. Otherwise paradox will fire a "Send in the troops" event on this thread.

It is true though, that there were many rebel movements in minor axis allies, for instance Germany even had to invade Slovakia near the end of the war...

 

[shri]

It is true though, that there were many rebel movements in minor axis allies, for instance Germany even had to invade Slovakia near the end of the war...

Those movements only came in the dying days i.e. late 1944 and 1945, when the countries realised that the Germans had lost and it was time to do "ITALY".
Irrelevant movements in the greater context of war, since all these tiny countries in the Balkans lost a lot of manpower (esp. prime youth) trying to fight the Soviets.
The Hungarians and Romanians lost over 300000 dead and 3X as many wounded in a population slightly less than 10 million for Hungary and just over 10 million for Romania, huge losses as % of population, touching something like 8-10% population (casualties figures). Enough to knock out some nations.

 

[ComradeCommissar]

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Operation Little Saturn, Jassy-Kishinev Offensive, Debrecen Offensive, Battle of Budapest, Ostrogozhsk-Rossosh Offensive.
Just to name a few offensives that utterly crushed the armies of the axis minors. Not to mention the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive that forced Finland into submission if they didn't want to be scraping bullets and shell fragments off the streets of Helsinki under Kuusinen.

The Soviets defeated the Axis Minor armies in the field and took the fight to their homes. Yes, Soviets did it alone (with the exception of friendly Romanian and Bulgarian armies in the Balkans). Who else did it? Bhutan?