Source? Not saying you´re wrong, just curious.
Then again, in czarist Russia their standard of living was not that good and they were too ignorant of the outside world to be politically more aware.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Source? Not saying you´re wrong, just curious.
Then again, in czarist Russia their standard of living was not that good and they were too ignorant of the outside world to be politically more aware.
Many actually would. But for the sake of argument let's say they wouldn't. The people wouldn't think that they were "giving away" their food, land, etc, rather joining a cause to get rid of a brutal totalitarian system which murdered millions.
Massive recruiting drives happened in major provinces before they lost the territory. This was only partly successful because the people were extremely willing to fight the Germans since they thought/knew that they were worse than the Soviets.
Before we have a debate on the troops that came from the Far East, let's for the sake of argument say that the defense of Moscow in our scenario was purely manned by troops that already were fighting the Germans. The Germans would not have to encircle Moscow in-depth. They could probably assault Moscow directly although with much cost and effort (The losses would be horrific on both sides) but it would be a huge blow to the Soviets who'd most probably collapse after the capture of Leningrad. The German's could afford this because they would have a vast number of Ukrainian, Russian, and Baltic volunteers who could act as reserves or "cannon fodder" paving the way through the streets of Moscow. Also, historically the largest part of the defenses of Moscow were built by the extremely willing citizens of Moscow. Take away their willingness, and the defenses would've been built poorly, thus they wouldn't have been as formidable.
Very true, but as you said so yourself, that was only between 1942-1945, not 1942 which is what we're currently discussing. It appears that I caused some questions when I remarked about Vladivostok. Weather Vladivostok would be a viable route or not depends entirely on the Japanese High Command, and if they chose to go the northern route or not. What would be the outcome of this and how likely it would be, is better left to a different discussion.
Where did you get this? And more importantly when was this data received? Was it before the brutal collectivization system of 1928-1939 which left many peasants with nothing, as well as the subsequent artificial famine Stalin enforced on the Ukraine thereafter? Or was it after the German invasion which pushed the population to the Soviets after they realized the horrors and atrocities of the Wehrmacht and SS?
Last edited:
Wow there's so many if in this paragraph. I am only gonna say that IF somehow Russians surrendered to Germans from the very beginning of the war because they were nice in your hypothetical scenario then yeah they would have certainly lost.
Of course there are so many if's because we are discussing a hypothetical scenario. How could there not be any? The deeper you go into a hypothetical, the amount of variables greatly increases. Thus one must use a larger amount of "if's the deeper one goes. Discussing something that didn't happen as if it happened is wrong and has no place in a counter-factual discussion.
Last edited:
Actually you're hypthetical scenario can be resumed by "if Gemans acted as liberators and not oppressors, Russian would have no will to resist and thus lost".
There's really no more to add.
No, my scenario was "If Germans acted as liberators and not oppressors, the population of the western USSR would have no more will to live in the oppressive Soviet system" but that's not the point. The point is that it doesn't matter how many historical deviations you have, the farther past the POD you go, the more if's you have. For example, let's say that the Allies did not encounter bad weather and launched D-Day on the 5th of June 1944 . Now what would the effects of this be? This is where the "If's" come in. To further add to this hypothetical, let's say that the overall breakout of Normandy and liberation of France happened historically. Notice, this is an "if". Now we have to face how Market Garden and the the Battle of the Bulge would've played out IF they even did. Although it seems like a single day wouldn't change much, the answer is that nobody really knows. The problem with counter-factual's is that there always has to be some historical assumption to even go anywhere with the POD or else one gets swept away in the overwhelming amount of "if's" and possibilities.
But back on-topic. Even if Germany acted as liberators and recruited the help of the locals, I never claimed that the German's couldn't have lost, rather that a Soviet victory would be much harder to achieve.
Last edited:
I must note that majority of former HiWis went not into GULAG (which is a acronym for Main Directorate of (Prison) Camps) but to special settlements which is not imprisonment per se. They lived in unguarded camps but without right to leave. They worked for standart rate of payment (not for reduced pay as people in GULAG work camps) and they this work counted towards their future pensions. Also after they "served their term" in such settlement there was no mark in their criminal record so they did not count as former criminal.
This is very important distinction between "being sent to GULAG" and special settlement.
AFAIK, french treatment of their collaborators also wasn't very forgiving.
Eh, i would hazard a guess that joining enemy army in wartime is considered high treason, and punishable with death in pretty much every country on Earth.
It is a wrong perception of soviet government. Majority of Soviet Union population did not consider their country "brutal totalitarian regime". You mix up outside perception with internal views.
Frontal assault will work even worse than it worked one year later in Stalingrad. This is the attack where soviets are strongest while german troops are weakest. By the december'1941 german tank divisions had about 10-20 tanks operational on average each. The companies in infantry divisions were on average size of slightly overstrenght platoon. In fact oneof the main reasons for major german logisitcal problems at this time is that germans drafted their support personel into frontline roles because severe losses in combat units.
Germans could not afford the mutual bloodbath in the late 1941, they did not have enough troops at the frontline for it. Their only hope was another pincer movement and they tried it during Typhoon offensive but failed.
They would not because "cannon fodder" do not work in industrial war. You need about 2-3 month to form a barely trained (by soviet standart) infantry division. And after this you still need to transport this division to the front. And germans did not have the capability to do it because they failed to reinforce even their own divisions. Why they would be use useless horde of undertrained and underarmed consripts instead properly trained and effective german infanty is beyond me. In the World War II a bunch of guys with rifles is nothing more that a grease for the tank tracks.
You cannot take away their willingness. Human psychology do not work in that way. You may look at all wars through history. Koreans did not surrendered en masse to US troops altough americans weren't genocidial maniacs. The same happened in Vietnam. People defend their countries not because their enemies are murderous bastards but because it is their country. It is a very silly and unbased in reality misconception that soviet people dreamed about somebody freeng them from the bolshevik's yoke.
Very true, but as you said so yourself, that was only between 1942-1945, not 1942 which is what we're currently discussing. It appears that I caused some questions when I remarked about Vladivostok. Weather Vladivostok would be a viable route or not depends entirely on the Japanese High Command, and if they chose to go the northern route or not. What would be the outcome of this and how likely it would be, is better left to a different discussion.
I just will note that standart of living in Soviet Union vastly improved in the 30s in comparsion to the 20s or imperial period. So people actually lived in better conditions that before. You people apparently really do not understand this.
Wow you know what you are talking about I am deep imprest because I never found this information thank you for your reply.
Oh, that was nice documentary. A fresh one after all these that were almost solely from the perspective of German army. Still, that is only a documentary, even if very long one.
Okay but as I said all you if's turn around the fact that basically "Moscow could have been taken if Russians did not have to same desire to defend the city/Join the ennemy.
Not that I disagree. If your people have no will to fight. How the hell can you win ?
Tough I do think it was completly impossible to do with Barbarossa. You can't play liberator and arm pro-German Russian if you already are barely able to equip and arm you very own army by the point you get to Moscow.
By the time of the battle of Moscow the retreat of the Germans troop whether willingly or by force was already foregone conclusion. They just couldn't take the city without having to secure their supply line first.
Barbarossa had failed since the Soviet Army was still there to resist. A change of plan was needed. There's a reason why the Germans didn't go for Moscow or Leningrad in 42', they knew that even if one of the city felt (and it was not a certainty far from it just like in 41') it won't end the war and the loss would not be worth it.
Rather Hitler opted to strike the economy of the Soviet Union in his southern offensive while boosting his own war economy. It was a good plan. Alas they weren't enough Germans to protect the whole frontline and they had to count on their allies but that's another story.
Actually IMO it would be one of the major what-ifs, but you don´t do wars of conquest posing as liberators. The poles were aware that the goal wasn´t liberation and I doubt it´s difficult to make the soviet people believe that wouldn´t be the case with them either.
To know if the what if was even possible, you would have to know what was the average opinion of people living in Smolensk, Leningrad etc. If the majority hated the soviet leadership, THEN that propaganda MIGHT have a chance to work.
You can, but it's called a lie. But that doesn't mean anyone would really catch on to it. Hitler most probably (after the defeat of the Soviets) set up Reichskommissariats like he did IOTL but the integration into Germany would've been much slower to prevent too many partisans.
The case of the Poles is extremely different. Hitler used Poland to liberate the ethnic German's living there after Versailles, he never claimed to "liberate" the poles from their leadership.
Yes, the majority hated the Soviet leadership, as well as the Stalinist system. Even most Marxist's in the Soviet Union hated Stalinism. That's the point I've been trying to make all this time.
I feel as though if Germany had managed to beat the Soviets, USA being at war with Germany which seemed inevitable would have been Germanys death blow. Look at WW1, Russia had dropped from it due to the revolution and a handy beatdown, meanwhile Germany fighting France/GB were pretty much exhausted of manpower, then USA joins the allies, pretty much being the death blow.
No state can exist when majority of population hate the system.No amount of repression will keep such state alive. It is one of profound misconceptions in history,Yes, the majority hated the Soviet leadership, as well as the Stalinist system. Even most Marxist's in the Soviet Union hated Stalinism. That's the point I've been trying to make all this time.