Italy or Soviets, which do you think is coming first?

[Basileus2]

I believe that if the East and West had not become ideological competitors so soon after the end of WW2 the world would have celebrated the sacrifices and successes of the Russian people. It is a compelling story, the very story American then (and now) love to read. A story of the underdog getting sucker punched, falls, but finds the strength not to just get up, but win.

Unfortunately, the East nor the West could endorse a lot of good stories about an ally that was now a competitor.

Completely agree. The Western Front(s), African Front, and Pacific War are not taught in Russia beyond a few lines as far as I know, and likewise we're not taught about the Eastern Front. There is such a plethora of incredible stories on all sides though, so this is really too bad there are so many agendas preventing us from having a well-rounded education on the subject.

 

[Surimi]

This really jabs at the heart of the argument and why we are even having it. First, in order to understand nazi ideology we must analyze what they say their ideology is.

The supreme irony in this is that ideology, at least in the sense you're using it here, is a Marxist concept, and the techniques of analysing ideology always, in some sense, derive from Marx. I realise that doesn't really mean very much, Marx is one of the most important figures of the human sciences. I'm bringing it up to point out that what you're proposing is a very bad approach to analysing ideology.

One of the most important Marxist realisations about ideology is that ideology isn't a neutral or "objective" description of our political position, it's a false view of reality (a false consciousness, as Marx called it) the deliberate intent of which is to obscure or hide the real, material factors which challenge our political positions. Thus, when we examine ideology, we have to do so critically. We have to adopt a position of scepticism towards any ideological claims, and to always consider the material context and consequences of those claims. It's important, because if we don't do that, then we are doing the ideology which we're meant to be analysing.

So sure, we can cherry pick quotes where Hitler talks about being a socialist and from that declare that the Nazis were socialists, and that they share commonalities or collective interest with other socialists, or that national socialism is a natural outgrowth or extrapolation from other forms of socialism. But, as soon as we exercise even the barest shred of criticism, as soon as we start considering even the most basic material context, that claim utterly disintegrates. Claiming that Hitler was a socialist may be nominally accurate, but it is only nominally accurate. It conveys no actual meaning or significance as a statement except to imply the person saying it doesn't like socialism.

NOWHERE did I claim that nazism is marxist socialism, nor did I even claim nazsim is in fact fascism (they are two different ideologies sorry.) In fact just above I said:

I'm not going to accept this when, a few lines down, you are going to lecture me about "socialism" without clarifying whose socialism you are referring to.

Besides, fascism isn't an ideology. It's a doctrine, remember. Mussolini was pretty clear on that. The fascist state is an organic political reality which is above ideological limitations.

Of course, if we think critically, then fascism is clearly ideological. It's not hard to identify clear features of Italian fascist ideology. Umberto Eco wrote an incredibly famous essay devoted largely to listing the ideological features of fascism. Most of these features are shared, to some extent, with Nazism, but that's not why I called Nazism a form of fascism. The reason I did that is because they are connected in very material and quantiifable ways. One clearly inspired the other. They are ideologically compatible. They literally fought a war on the same side against socialists, who were their common enemy. Fascism wasn't confined to a single party in Italy, rather that party was itself part of a global movement which we also call fascism, and of which Nazism was one particular expression.

But when society shifted to think man has free will that carried with it a multitude of implications. If man has free will then god cannot be behind everything, therefore the king is not where he is because of god.

The free will versus divine will debate isn't really a feature of the Enlightenment though, it's a feature of the reformation, and it isn't really a straightforward debate either because belief in free will and divine will are not mutually exclusive. After all, to paraphrase an early humanist theological position, if God possesses omnipotent will and humans are made in the image of God, then humans must also possess will which is analogous to that of God. By far the most interesting thing about divine will as a concept is that it comes hand in hand with the idea that God is unknowable. That's why divine will as a concept was so important to the development of things like humanism, modernity and ultimately (a few centuries down the line) the enlightenment, because it created an epistemological skepticism around claims to religious authority.

AKA "Robespierre felt that he *was* the will of the people, and that anyone against him, or anyone who did not want to go along with the herd was against the "will of the people" and therefore terror was necessary to protect the people from such evil. Terror kept men honest, it kept society virtuous. That my friend is a socialist society. Source: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_Robespierre)

When Americans say that the right to bear arms is a safeguard against tyranny, what do you think that means? What do you imagine would be involved in using guns to prevent tyranny? What do you think Jefferson meant when he said "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". For that matter, since we're talking about Nazis. What ultimately happened to the Nazi leadership at the end of the war?

Revolutionary terror is not a concept unique to the French revolution, it's a feature of every anti-authoritarian society during a state of emergency, instability or war. It is the basic idea that those who would make themselves tyrants should live in perpetual fear of retribution from the masses they would oppress. Robespierre wasn't a socialist, he was practically a walking stereotype of the radical Enlightenment. He was intensely pro-democracy, intensely nationalistic and intensely economically liberal.

Again what I can only imagine you mean by calling Robespierre, of all people, a socialist is that you don't like him, which I can understand. He's embarassing. He's a sad reminder of the tyrannical lengths to which a liberal society might go to protect its own freedom. But like it or not, that capacity for revolutionary terror is inherent to all liberal societies, otherwise they would not remain liberal societies for very long.

 

[Col.Klink]

The free will versus divine will debate isn't really a feature of the Enlightenment though, it's a feature of the reformation, and it isn't really a straightforward debate either because belief in free will and divine will are not mutually exclusive. After all, to paraphrase an early humanist theological position, if God possesses omnipotent will and humans are made in the image of God, then humans must also possess will which is analogous to that of God. By far the most interesting thing about divine will as a concept is that it comes hand in hand with the idea that God is unknowable. That's why divine will as a concept was so important to the development of things like humanism, modernity and ultimately (a few centuries down the line) the enlightenment, because it created an epistemological skepticism around claims to religious authority.

You're right, it isn't technically mutually exclusive (though generally the idea develops to the point that it largely is.) Nor is it a very simple concept. I guess though maybe I was a bit off.... The enlightenment happened BECAUSE of that shift, not was that shift. That's what happens when you try to simplify things too much right!? And yes, I agree with pretty much everything you say here. The transformation of thinking of the human mind as divine was a fundamental shift needed to create the modern world.

The supreme irony in this is that ideology, at least in the sense you're using it here, is a Marxist concept, and the techniques of analysing ideology always, in some sense, derive from Marx. I realise that doesn't really mean very much, Marx is one of the most important figures of the human sciences. I'm bringing it up to point out that what you're proposing is a very bad approach to analysing ideology.

One of the most important Marxist realisations about ideology is that ideology isn't a neutral or "objective" description of our political position, it's a false view of reality (a false consciousness, as Marx called it) the deliberate intent of which is to obscure or hide the real, material factors which challenge our political positions. Thus, when we examine ideology, we have to do so critically. We have to adopt a position of scepticism towards any ideological claims, and to always consider the material context and consequences of those claims. It's important, because if we don't do that, then we are doing the ideology which we're meant to be analysing.

So sure, we can cherry pick quotes where Hitler talks about being a socialist and from that declare that the Nazis were socialists, and that they share commonalities or collective interest with other socialists, or that national socialism is a natural outgrowth or extrapolation from other forms of socialism. But, as soon as we exercise even the barest shred of criticism, as soon as we start considering even the most basic material context, that claim utterly disintegrates. Claiming that Hitler was a socialist may be nominally accurate, but it is only nominally accurate. It conveys no actual meaning or significance as a statement except to imply the person saying it doesn't like socialism.

Note I feel Marxism is just downright.... evil but the more I learn, the more I understand (and it's a very complicated idea) the more I appreciate the man. Your're right that he is one of the most important minds of history. The point of the whole argument we had in this thread in fact was to point out the importance of Marx. How his ideas flowed into making ww2 as bad as it was. Geopolitics meant Germany would probably have invaded the east eventually, but we likely wouldn't have had a Hitler or a Stalin without Marx.

And sorry, the usual argument that "Hitler privatized industries therefore he wasn't socialist" I don't accept because direct ownership isn't a prerequisite for control. Instead the Nazi party installed party officials on the boards of corporations to ensure that everything was run "for the good of the people." This is exactly how the modern Chinese Communist Party works. Corporations are only allowed to gain large scale market access if they serve the government's interests which they conveniently define as the "interests of the people." In both the Nazi case and the modern CCP case corporations are coerced into operation at a loss "for the good of the people."

As I said, the Soviet Union is explicit control of all industry and every aspect of people's lives. Nazi Germany was implicit. In actual practice this difference really doesn't matter. It's the same thing.

I'm not going to accept this when, a few lines down, you are going to lecture me about "socialism" without clarifying whose socialism you are referring to.

Besides, fascism isn't an ideology. It's a doctrine, remember. Mussolini was pretty clear on that. The fascist state is an organic political reality which is above ideological limitations.

Of course, if we think critically, then fascism is clearly ideological. It's not hard to identify clear features of Italian fascist ideology. Umberto Eco wrote an incredibly famous essay devoted largely to listing the ideological features of fascism. Most of these features are shared, to some extent, with Nazism, but that's not why I called Nazism a form of fascism. The reason I did that is because they are connected in very material and quantiifable ways. One clearly inspired the other. They are ideologically compatible. They literally fought a war on the same side against socialists, who were their common enemy. Fascism wasn't confined to a single party in Italy, rather that party was itself part of a global movement which we also call fascism, and of which Nazism was one particular expression.

Fascism and Nazism I'd agree are so similar that they can be hard to separate. At this moment, lacking sleep with my frazzled brain I can think of only one major way to tell the difference between them. The form of identity politics the dictator enslaves the population using. Mussolini's fascism was the identity politics of a country. It technically was multi ethnic uniting the more brown southern Italians with the northern Italians under one umbrella. It's more of a cultural concept of being Italian. Nazism instead played with the "nation" a single conceptual ethnic identity, in that case being Aryan. It's such a fine distinction that they behave very similarly unless put under the microscope.

And yeah, defining socialism concretely is very difficult. I guess the best description is collectivizing all of society behind an identity characteristic. All things about the individual are subordinated to their identity group, or the identity group in power trying to eliminate all other "competing" identity groups. As we have discussed often socialists will use promises of anarchy to achieve power but underlying that utopic vision is wiping out all competing identities, all competing ideas. Once everyone thinks the same and has no difference then there is no cause of conflict and therefore anarchy can function. TBH it's as I said, really really evil.

When Americans say that the right to bear arms is a safeguard against tyranny, what do you think that means? What do you imagine would be involved in using guns to prevent tyranny? What do you think Jefferson meant when he said "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". For that matter, since we're talking about Nazis. What ultimately happened to the Nazi leadership at the end of the war?

Revolutionary terror is not a concept unique to the French revolution, it's a feature of every anti-authoritarian society during a state of emergency, instability or war. It is the basic idea that those who would make themselves tyrants should live in perpetual fear of retribution from the masses they would oppress. Robespierre wasn't a socialist, he was practically a walking stereotype of the radical Enlightenment. He was intensely pro-democracy, intensely nationalistic and intensely economically liberal.

Again what I can only imagine you mean by calling Robespierre, of all people, a socialist is that you don't like him, which I can understand. He's embarassing. He's a sad reminder of the tyrannical lengths to which a liberal society might go to protect its own freedom. But like it or not, that capacity for revolutionary terror is inherent to all liberal societies, otherwise they would not remain liberal societies for very long.

Really I'm not a big promoter of the idea of arming the populous to overthrow the government. I was pointing out first principles. If you don't believe people can be trusted with power then why would you allow them to speak freely either? Words can cause much more harm than one madman with a gun as we all know and as such societies that don't believe the common man should be invested with much power have speech limitations. It's a fundamental world view difference and I don't think me waging my finger being all morally superior about it will sway people to my side (I feel if you invest power into one man or one cadre aka the government when that one man makes a mistake he makes it for EVERYONE causing more harm than diffused power would) but I think its important to discuss this fundamental issue rather than the stats about homicide and violence. It's much deeper and a much more valuable pursuit to discuss that than statistics.

And no, defining any kind of dissent as "against the will of the people", declaring that anyone who didn't march lock step with everyone else in society was a "tyrant" is not "liberalism." That's socialism, collectivism. The argument against dissent is that the plebs are stupid and terribly misled they don't actually understand themselves. No only Robespierre knows their true desires, what they truly need. So only Robespierre can enact "the will of the people." This is the fundamental argument of all socialist tyrants. People aren't allowed to go their own way for that is "tyranny." Instead the dictator forces everyone into identity groups and controls them that way. "the workers all believe and do..... " or "the French people all think and do...." or "the Italians all think and do...." or finally "the Aryans all think and do...."

The terrifying thing about this is that there is a time and a place for identity politics, genuine grievances that must be resolved. But socialism enslaves people with their identities. That's why it's so insidious and difficult to defend against.

 

[Ffire]

There are two theories involving that. The first one is that russia was inept and couldn't get them to the front. Ok its plausible. Theory 2 is that Stalin was a madman with a plan. That he INTENTIONALLY set armies in successive waves instead of just pouring them all on the front.

No way. there's many different reason why soviets troops were deployed like they were, but choosing to start war with the biggest losses in men and equipment of all military history wasn't a INTENTIONAL move.
The combat units were both on the frontline, in position to attack because the soviet doctrine pre-war and their war plan (plan MP-41) was based purely on offensive, as much as the french army rely on defensive, but at the same time not mobilized with only third of the combat units in position (the 2 others thirds in permission or training a few kilometers aways). The mobilization order was only sent a few hours before german attack because Stalin didn't want to provoke Hitler and thinked until end of june he could negociate.
Stalin truly believe that Hitler would not really attack him until UK, supported by US, stay at war with him. He received some varied intelligence reports about that. The unfamous spy Sorge correctly predicted Barbarossa initial date (15th may), but the operation was delayed and nothing happened the 15th. Sorge has send wrong info before and Stalin didn't trust him. Sorge wasn't USSR best spy (their best spies were Harro Schulze-Boysen aka "Starchina" and Arvid Harnack aka "Le corse") The germans did a lot to intox him, they made him think their armies kept in front of USSR was a decoy before SeaLion. Churchill tried to warn Stalin, but Stalin didn't trust the UK : he always think that they were trying to force a fight between USSR and Germany, to UK's advantage. So Stalin was overwhelmed by a mass of informations about a possible or not german attack, some were truth, others fakes, some from sources he trust, others not. He didn't have like Churchill an intelligence service capable of strategical analysis, because, like others dictators, he choose to never share strategicals data. So he took his decisions based on his own bias : Germany will not attack me because it's stupid. It's stupid because they're already at war with UK backed up by USA, the 2 top world economies and navies. It's stupid because Germany needs ressources and I'm the one feeding them. It's stupid because we have an agreement and I'll never do anything to let Hitler think I can threat him. Stalin behavior is very logical. Hitler's isn't. Stalin didn't understand Hitler and the way the german state worked. That's his mistake.

That was aggravated by Golikov, who was in charge of intelligence reports, and feared so much Stalin that he often bends or hide intelligence reports.

 

[Col.Klink]

No way. there's many different reason why soviets troops were deployed like they were, but choosing to start war with the biggest losses in men and equipment of all military history wasn't a INTENTIONAL move.
The combat units were both on the frontline, in position to attack because the soviet doctrine pre-war and their war plan (plan MP-41) was based purely on offensive, as much as the french army rely on defensive, but at the same time not mobilized with only third of the combat units in position (the 2 others thirds in permission or training a few kilometers aways). The mobilization order was only sent a few hours before german attack because Stalin didn't want to provoke Hitler and thinked until end of june he could negociate.
Stalin truly believe that Hitler would not really attack him until UK, supported by US, stay at war with him. He received some varied intelligence reports about that. The unfamous spy Sorge correctly predicted Barbarossa initial date (15th may), but the operation was delayed and nothing happened the 15th. Sorge has send wrong info before and Stalin didn't trust him. Sorge wasn't USSR best spy (their best spies were Harro Schulze-Boysen aka "Starchina" and Arvid Harnack aka "Le corse") The germans did a lot to intox him, they made him think their armies kept in front of USSR was a decoy before SeaLion. Churchill tried to warn Stalin, but Stalin didn't trust the UK : he always think that they were trying to force a fight between USSR and Germany, to UK's advantage. So Stalin was overwhelmed by a mass of informations about a possible or not german attack, some were truth, others fakes, some from sources he trust, others not. He didn't have like Churchill an intelligence service capable of strategical analysis, because, like others dictators, he choose to never share strategicals data. So he took his decisions based on his own bias : Germany will not attack me because it's stupid. It's stupid because they're already at war with UK backed up by USA, the 2 top world economies and navies. It's stupid because Germany needs ressources and I'm the one feeding them. It's stupid because we have an agreement and I'll never do anything to let Hitler think I can threat him. Stalin behavior is very logical. Hitler's isn't. Stalin didn't understand Hitler and the way the german state worked. That's his mistake.

That was aggravated by Golikov, who was in charge of intelligence reports, and feared so much Stalin that he often bends or hide intelligence reports.

The argument about the successive waves wasn't that the waves were the plan from the outset, but the solution to the catastrophic collapse of the front line army. I would agree that it's quite likely that Stalin didn't think Hitler would attack but that doesn't undermine the argument that the successive waves were intentional.

The theory is that Hitler attacks at the worst possible moment for the Soviet Union. They were completely restructuring their military making the army incapable of stopping the German panzer spearhead. The Joseph Stalin line of forts (I think that was it's name) far to the east had been disarmed as a new, and woefully incomplete line was being built to defend the Polish conquest. So Russian fixed defenses were at their weakest possible moment.

The reason the Soviet army was restructuring was lessons from observing the German invasion of France. With these lessons the argument behind this theory is that Stalin realized that at this moment of initial weakness and the catastrophic initial losses the Soviet military would be utterly incapable of stopping the German advance in one go. The only way to stop then therefore would to be wear them down in successive waves. Make them fight battle after battle. Essentially stop the German dagger by laying forth layer after layer after layer of plastic stretchy shopping bags as an analogy.

TBH this is actually pretty close to classic pre modern Russian grand strategy. It's not such a new concept.

 

[Crecer13]

The argument about the successive waves wasn't that the waves were the plan from the outset, but the solution to the catastrophic collapse of the front line army. I would agree that it's quite likely that Stalin didn't think Hitler would attack but that doesn't undermine the argument that the successive waves were intentional.

The theory is that Hitler attacks at the worst possible moment for the Soviet Union. They were completely restructuring their military making the army incapable of stopping the German panzer spearhead. The Joseph Stalin line of forts (I think that was it's name) far to the east had been disarmed as a new, and woefully incomplete line was being built to defend the Polish conquest. So Russian fixed defenses were at their weakest possible moment.

The reason the Soviet army was restructuring was lessons from observing the German invasion of France. With these lessons the argument behind this theory is that Stalin realized that at this moment of initial weakness and the catastrophic initial losses the Soviet military would be utterly incapable of stopping the German advance in one go. The only way to stop then therefore would to be wear them down in successive waves. Make them fight battle after battle. Essentially stop the German dagger by laying forth layer after layer after layer of plastic stretchy shopping bags as an analogy.

TBH this is actually pretty close to classic pre modern Russian grand strategy. It's not such a new concept.

Everything is much simpler. Stalin was simply late with an order to advance troops to the border. If he had given this order in the spring, then all the troops would have time to the border and would have time to prepare the defensive lines. When Stalin nevertheless decided on the order, the troops split into three echelons on the border, en route to the border, and began to move to the border. Therefore, Soviet troops entered the battle in small groups as they arrived at the front. If Stalin would give the order on time, the Germans would expect serious preparation and numerical superiority of the Soviet troops. And apparently a completely different war.

 

[mursolini]

I believe that if the East and West had not become ideological competitors so soon after the end of WW2 the world would have celebrated the sacrifices and successes of the Russian people. It is a compelling story, the very story American then (and now) love to read. A story of the underdog getting sucker punched, falls, but finds the strength not to just get up, but win.

Unfortunately, the East nor the West could endorse a lot of good stories about an ally that was now a competitor.

The 1/6 landmass and over tripple population (double if you count German allies) and larger industry, "underdog" is ridiculous.

Then, USSR "only" invaded Poland, Baltic states and Findland before, and did quite despicable purges in areas it occupied pre German invasion, and after.

Stories of personal sacrifice and people trapped in between two regimes are interesting and compelling and all, but that is about the only ray of light in entire Eastern front, of somewhat less despicable regime triumphing over totally "insane" one.

 

[Ffire]

that doesn't undermine the argument that the successive waves were intentional.

They didn't planned that at all

They did that because their initiall strategy which was to massively counterattack during day 1 miserably failed. What undermine that is their war plan MP-41 (mobilisation plan year 41), all the war games that were planned by Red Army high command during winter 40-early 41, and their deployment with the main forces in the south, not in position to defend Moscow but to flank any attacking forces that would try to invade Ukraine from the german border or going straight to Moscow.

 

[Harin]

The 1/6 landmass and over tripple population (double if you count German allies) and larger industry, "underdog" is ridiculous.

Then, USSR "only" invaded Poland, Baltic states and Findland before, and did quite despicable purges in areas it occupied pre German invasion, and after.

Stories of personal sacrifice and people trapped in between two regimes are interesting and compelling and all, but that is about the only ray of light in entire Eastern front, of somewhat less despicable regime triumphing over totally "insane" one.

So harsh.

On June 22nd, 1941, the Russians were the underdogs. They did get sucker-punched. It is why they got their collective butts kicked.

Later, Russia rose to its potential and won.

I said the Russian PEOPLE, not their leader, nor their government. They are not the same thing. I used capitals and bold type so you do not miss it this time.

If you want to argue about how bad the Soviet government and Stalin was, go somewhere else. I will not defend what they did. It is indefensible.

 

[Ffire]

So harsh.

On June 22nd, 1941, the Russians were the underdogs. They did get sucker-punched. It is why they got their collective butts kicked.

Later, Russia rose to its potential and won.

I said the Russian PEOPLE, not their leader, nor their government. They are not the same thing. I used capitals and bold type so you do not miss it this time.

If you want to argue about how bad the Soviet government and Stalin was, go somewhere else. I will not defend what they did. It is indefensible.

in june 22, Russians had more tanks, combat planes, and artillery guns than any other nations on earth. They had some of the best weapons of that era in great numbers like KV, T34, Pe-2. They just sucks so much at using them.

Just to give you an example : they lost a lot of planes during the first weeks of fighting. Of course they was some surprise during day 1, but for the next 20 days you can argue about the surprise. But they still suffered very high casualties on the ground. Why ? because they keep all their planes concentrated on a few airfields. And why did they do that ? because soviet air commanders knew they would totally lose controls due to their poor transmissions if they dispers their wings others field strips. They prefered suffer heavy casualties rather than total loss of control.

They were not underdogs in june 41. They became underdogs in autumn/winter 41 because they lagged far, far, far behind the werhmacht tactically.

 

[Harin]

in june 22, Russians had more tanks, combat planes, and artillery guns than any other nations on earth. They had some of the best weapons of that era in great numbers like KV, T34, Pe-2. They just sucks so much at using them.

Just to give you an example : they lost a lot of planes during the first weeks of fighting. Of course they was some surprise during day 1, but for the next 20 days you can argue about the surprise. But they still suffered very high casualties on the ground. Why ? because they keep all their planes concentrated on a few airfields. And why did they do that ? because soviet air commanders knew they would totally lose controls due to their poor transmissions if they dispers their wings others field strips. They prefered suffer heavy casualties rather than total loss of control.

They were not underdogs in june 41. They became underdogs in autumn/winter 41 because they lagged far, far, far behind the werhmacht tactically.

I see where you are coming from. You are counting equipment and manpower, etc.. I can see that. If that is your definition of underdog, then my statement would not make sense to you.

Where I was coming from was that most of us on these forums know that the Russian military was a paper tiger. We have the hindsight and know that they did not stand a chance on that day. It is why few want to play a start date of June 22nd, 1941. We all want to fix the Russian military before the attack. In game terms and in real life they were the inferior side. I chose the term underdog, since I was talking about stories that could be told.

The Russian military had to rise to the occasion to become the superior force. They did not start that way, even with vast numbers of equipment. So many of us have read much on the war. We know that numbers is only part of the story and for the Russians in 1941, the numbers were not the answer.

Even today, when the US military attacks a force that is numerically superior, no one calls the US the underdog. The other force is, despite superior numbers.

But that is how I see it. I can understand how others might look at the numbers and say otherwise. I will not call it ridiculous to do so. I will say the numbers did not matter as the Russian military was clearly outmatched.

 

[valentin4]

Didn't Hoi III have an officer corps mechanic? Either way it took me a long time to realize that really that the whole concept is ultimately bunk. Like the idea that the Russian army performed so poorly early 1941 was because of the purges.

Consider, it's 1939. The day Germany invades Poland George C. Marshall is sworn in as Chief of Staff of the US Army. Now the US government was not complacent, this was a period in which the US quietly began to prepare for war, the M2 medium tank was deemed obsolete and needed to be replaced as an example. Anyway, what did George Marshall do to prepare the USA for war? He forced something like 98% of the senior officer corps into retirement. That's right, in 1939 the USA had it's own purge of it's army! Marshall had this list of attributes that he deemed necessary to a quality officer corps and was quite ruthless in driving folks who didn't fit the bill out, Patton really being the only such survivor of note. Now you consider that after this purge he would oversee the expansion of the US Army from 186,000 men to 8,200,000 men and the quality of leadership only kept going up as time went on.

When looking at that I finally realized the theory about Stalin's purges crippling the soviet military is bunk. If the USA could do a purge and expand its army nearly 8 fold in just two years (39-41, the army expanded by 43 fold by 1945) then there is no reason why the officer corps that Stalin purged in 36-37 couldn't have been replaced by 1941 and he didn't expand his army by nearly the same degree that the United States did. No soviet weakness in 1941 has to be something else.... Some historians argue that it's really that the Russian tank corps were being restructured, they didn't even have trucks for the infantry to work in coordination. The infantry divisions didn't have anti tank guns. Communication was almost solely done by wire ect.

You're right that the sacking of old officers wasn't necessarily a problem, but the Purges did have a crippling effect on the officers because they were terrorized to take any initiative and were double checked by the political commissars. So yes, the consequences of the Purges were well felt in 1941. Also, unlike the US Army and the Wermacht, the Red Army failed to train enough officers in its 39-41 massive expansion.

 

[valentin4]

I actually begin to think that the Soviet Union fought better than we give credit. Germany lost roughly 4.4 million men on the eastern front according to a quick google search. Suppose we say that the USSR was literally materially unprepared for war as I had posited before. So in 1941 Russia lost 5,000,000 to the Axis 1,000,000. But what about the rest of the war where the Axis continued to outnumber the USSR forces (at the front) and continued to be on the offensive for two more years?

that's not true though, the soviets outnumbered the germans at the front from 1942 onwards

 

[mursolini]

So harsh.

On June 22nd, 1941, the Russians were the underdogs. They did get sucker-punched. It is why they got their collective butts kicked.

Later, Russia rose to its potential and won.

I said the Russian PEOPLE, not their leader, nor their government. They are not the same thing. I used capitals and bold type so you do not miss it this time.

If you want to argue about how bad the Soviet government and Stalin was, go somewhere else. I will not defend what they did. It is indefensible.

Soviets were not underdogs, frankly even in terms of their 1941 army they could have done a fairly good job of holding up till second and third mobilisation wave arrived.

Then, I understand your emphasis on people, but frankly there were millions that wrote false reports that got their neighbors into Gulag. There were hundreds of thousands in units that did prosecute their own people without trial. People whom were in favor of collectivisation and much more. Soviet Union was not some ancient regime. Most people whom built it, supporter and nurtured it were either still alive, or were killed by their fellow comrades by June 1941. Soviet Union history is not a history of a small minority rule, it is a history of majority gladly accepting prosecution and execution of minority that was opposed to regime. There more or less was no reason why NKVD's reign of terror could not be stopped if people opposed it.

The regime itself only lost popular support in 70s and 80s.

People throwing constructors of their best airplanes into prison and then seeing their unupgraded air force destroyed(Hi Policarpov). People watching as their best military officers being purged and then watching their enormous army forld like paper beg, being poorly led by replacement loyalists.
And many more examples, unfortunately, of entire institutes writing on each other.

Then when Germans invaded, plenty of people used that to get arms into their hands and go seek justice on their previous nighbours, and a retaliation after was was over.

That government, and that Eastern Front was build on the chooses those in still living made. And to me, there isn't much of a story other than being engineers of their own tragedy.

 

[Harin]

You're right that the sacking of old officers wasn't necessarily a problem, but the Purges did have a crippling effect on the officers because they were terrorized to take any initiative and were double checked by the political commissars. So yes, the consequences of the Purges were well felt in 1941. Also, unlike the US Army and the Wermacht, the Red Army failed to train enough officers in its 39-41 massive expansion.

The purges also removed around 80% of the middle management officers. That meant that the new officers in these positions, had only one to two years experience before the war.

 

[mursolini]

You're right that the sacking of old officers wasn't necessarily a problem, but the Purges did have a crippling effect on the officers because they were terrorized to take any initiative and were double checked by the political commissars. So yes, the consequences of the Purges were well felt in 1941. Also, unlike the US Army and the Wermacht, the Red Army failed to train enough officers in its 39-41 massive expansion.

Purges mostly targeted division commanders and similar. Those people would probably be 35-55 years, similar to Rommel and Guderian or younger.

It wasn't just that it they didn't train enough people, very often training itself was of low quality or heavily rushed.

One particularly great problem was general lack of weapon fire training, and using vehicles, because SU just couldn't afford to train it's huge army to a good standard. Then, maybe instead of 8k armor, they would have had 4k, but with well trained crews and officers.

 

[Harin]

Soviets were not underdogs, frankly even in terms of their 1941 army they could have done a fairly good job of holding up till second and third mobilisation wave arrived.

Then, I understand your emphasis on people, but frankly there were millions that wrote false reports that got their neighbors into Gulag. There were hundreds of thousands in units that did prosecute their own people without trial. People whom were in favor of collectivisation and much more. Soviet Union was not some ancient regime. Most people whom built it, supporter and nurtured it were either still alive, or were killed by their fellow comrades by June 1941. Soviet Union history is not a history of a small minority rule, it is a history of majority gladly accepting prosecution and execution of minority that was opposed to regime. There more or less was no reason why NKVD's reign of terror could not be stopped if people opposed it.

The regime itself only lost popular support in 70s and 80s.

People throwing constructors of their best airplanes into prison and then seeing their unupgraded air force destroyed(Hi Policarpov). People watching as their best military officers being purged and then watching their enormous army forld like paper beg, being poorly led by replacement loyalists.
And many more examples, unfortunately, of entire institutes writing on each other.

Then when Germans invaded, plenty of people used that to get arms into their hands and go seek justice on their previous nighbours, and a retaliation after was was over.

That government, and that Eastern Front was build on the chooses those in still living made. And to me, there isn't much of a story other than being engineers of their own tragedy.

I cannot disagree with your post. Those things did happen. They are well documented.

When I was in the military, I met people who were living under some harsh governments. People do things to survive, they can even get used to doing horrible things to each other. Still, even in these conditions, I saw stories of humanity, struggles that would break most people, and yes, people getting knocked down and getting back up.

I guess when I wrote my post I was looking at the Russian people with a different lens. Your lens is just as valid.

They were underdogs though....running for the door.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

No way it is "obvious" or "plausible" in any way. It is just as realistic as monarchist coup in USA.

Why? A monarchist coup in USA is unlikely because there had never been an American monarchy. (Unless you consider Norton I seriously). But even then it’s possible to reintegrate the USA into the British Empire as the UK which effectively means that Americans end up ruled by a monarchy. (and in the Rt56 mod it's possible to install Wallis Simpson as an Empress)

Russia was historically a monarchy and the Romanovs ruled for centuries being overthrown less than 20 years before.

There was an Imposer claiming to be Princess Anastasia and several genuine but more distant relatives of the Romanovs.

Why shouldn’t it be possible to re-establish the Russian Empire if the SU collapses?

 

[CrazyZombie]

Why shouldn’t it be possible to re-establish the Russian Empire if the SU collapses?

Because literally NOONE wanted to see return of "Russia that we lost". Monarchy has fallen because it was completely rotten system, led by incompetent leaders for the last half of century of the regime, and for average man in the Empire it was a hell where he lived every day. Even in White movement monarchists were a marginal minority, treated as some funny clowns, because any sane man understood that there was no way to push that minced meat back into meat grinder to get the whole piece.

The only way to "restore monarchy" in Russia was to defeat the Soviets in a military way in a big and bloody war, then crown any of remaining Romanovs (none of which technically had the right to claim the throne but who really cares at this point). That would work. But that "monarch" would be just a foreign puppet, seen as such by people, and trick is that his power would rely on foreign bayonets, and nothing else. Remove occupation contingents and the territory of Russia would drown in the chaos and terror acts of everyone against everyone and the power of the new tzar wouldn't even reach outskirts of Moscow/St. Petersburg (whatever is taken as a capital).

 

[Darksworthyone]

Because literally NOONE wanted to see return of "Russia that we lost". Monarchy has fallen because it was completely rotten system, led by incompetent leaders for the last half of century of the regime, and for average man in the Empire it was a hell where he lived every day. Even in White movement monarchists were a marginal minority, treated as some funny clowns, because any sane man understood that there was no way to push that minced meat back into meat grinder to get the whole piece.

The only way to "restore monarchy" in Russia was to defeat the Soviets in a military way in a big and bloody war, then crown any of remaining Romanovs (none of which technically had the right to claim the throne but who really cares at this point). That would work. But that "monarch" would be just a foreign puppet, seen as such by people, and trick is that his power would rely on foreign bayonets, and nothing else. Remove occupation contingents and the territory of Russia would drown in the chaos and terror acts of everyone against everyone and the power of the new tzar wouldn't even reach outskirts of Moscow/St. Petersburg (whatever is taken as a capital).

Well whether you like it or not the Monarchist paths are the most popular (look at all the statistics Paradox has posted) so Russia is definitely going to get one, I could totally see (in the context of the game) how after the great purge the remaining officers start a coup hoping to install a democracy but then the monarchist seize power, kind of like how the Spanish civil war works or maybe they choose after the war is over like the German civil war.