|
On January 03 2012 13:04 dmgdnooc wrote:
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR.
I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much.
What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland.
Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities.
But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not.
Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion.
And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany.
My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch.
Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death.
The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land.
There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat.
It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living.
It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement.
So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
|
On January 03 2012 18:24 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 13:04 dmgdnooc wrote:
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR.
I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much.
What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland.
Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities.
But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not.
Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion.
And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany.
My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch.
Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death.
The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land.
There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat.
It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living.
It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement.
So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941.
The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west.
Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR.
I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end.
Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death.
There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands.
I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
|
Ive been ignoring this thread for some time. Finally took the time to read it, and glad i did it.
There is so much I didnt know about WW2. Im thankful for this thread
|
On January 03 2012 19:36 dmgdnooc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 18:24 mcc wrote:On January 03 2012 13:04 dmgdnooc wrote:
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR.
I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much.
What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland.
Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities.
But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not.
Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion.
And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany.
My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch.
Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death.
The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land.
There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat.
It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living.
It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement.
So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941. The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west. Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR. I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory.
Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
|
On January 03 2012 12:25 Too_MuchZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 08:41 Kukaracha wrote:On January 03 2012 02:19 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why? Meh, to remember is the very purpose of history. If you don't think a nation should remember that their army used Chinese peasants as guinea pigs, treating them like kettle (washing the unconscious bodies with cold water and a hard brush on an aluminium table), then you simply don't belong to this thread (which is about history, after all). Should I add that relatives of those who suffered those crimes are alive and want Japan to stop denying the facts? Their will alone is a good reason. Not long ago, a Japanese history teacher received death threats after lecturing his students about war crimes in Japan. If you think this is normal... When talking about History and teaching history to students its different. These war crimes are usually shown on TV documents which they belong. But does ordinary student really need to know all the killing methods and experiments? No. Usually World War II is taught certain order (at least my time it was). 1. Why and how it started. 2. Which countries were involved. 3. Key battles / turning points. 4. End of war and cost of it (deaths and such). Of course losing and winning side has "different" history about the war. We might talk about Finnish war heroes while Russians talk theirs and say that our heroes are war criminals. Just remember history is taught differently each country and you cant change it. Perhaps you should take some lessons from losing side schools/teachers to get idea why its different. This is a guess but I bet France teaches World War II more France point of view. More teaching about resistance fighters and brutality of Germans? What we are told about here at Finland? Only small details like German occupied France and then they fight it back with help of British / USA soldiers (and others smaller countries). Is it really necessary to know how Germans killed resistance fighters (executed or tortured etc) or how resistance fighters killed German soldiers. War is never clean, its dirty. When my teacher said that there was war crimes involved each side its not his/her thing to go through these things, its up to you.
Nothing was ever censored to us in school about the Nazis and what they did in the concentration camps. Why should the Japanese be treated any different? And why would it be good to censor what happened? Afraid the students are going to have nightmares and get scarred for life?
|
On January 03 2012 20:07 MHT wrote:
Nothing was ever censored to us in school about the Nazis and what they did in the concentration camps. Why should the Japanese be treated any different? And why would it be good to censor what happened? Afraid the students are going to have nightmares and get scarred for life?
I agree. Such things need to be taught if only to teach that such things should never be allowed to happen again.
Japan's government to date has apologized for civilian deaths, but has never apologized for particular incidents which still needs to happen. /end opinion
My contribution:
Erwin Rommel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel
Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel popularly known as the Desert Fox, was a German Field Marshal of World War II. He won the respect of both his own troops and the enemies he fought. As one of the few generals who consistently fought the Western Allies (he was never assigned to the Eastern Front), Rommel is regarded as having been a humane and professional officer. His Afrikakorps was never accused of war crimes. Soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely. Furthermore, he ignored orders to kill captured commandos, Jewish soldiers and civilians in all theaters of his command.
The Flying Tigers
http://www.flyingtigersvideo.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers
During the summer of 1941, 300 young American men and women secretly trained in the jungles of Southeast Asia, preparing to face the Japanese Air Force in combat over the skies of China. Within weeks of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the daring exploits of the American Volunteer Group (AVG) captured the imagination of the world. The Chinese called them Fei Hu, for the shark's teeth painted on their planes. The world knew them as the legendary Flying Tigers. The Tigers' shark-faced fighters remain among the most recognizable of any individual combat aircraft of World War II, and they demonstrated innovative tactical victories when the news in the U.S. was filled with little more than stories of defeat at the hands of the Japanese forces.
They downed over 200 Japanese aircraft. Even using the lower figure of Japanese aircraft downed, the AVG's kill ratio was superior to that of contemporary Allied air groups in Malaya, the Philippines, and elsewhere. The AVG's success is all the more remarkable since they were outnumbered by Japanese fighters in almost all their engagements.
442nd Infantry Regiment (United States)
"Go for Broke!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)
The 442nd Regimental Combat Team (Japanese: 第442連隊戦闘団) of the United States Army, was composed of Japanese-American enlisted men and mostly Caucasian officers. They fought primarily in Europe during World War II, beginning in 1944. The families of many of its soldiers were subject to internment. The 442nd was a self-sufficient force, and fought with uncommon distinction in Italy, southern France, and Germany. The unit became the most highly–decorated regiment in the history of the United States armed forces, including 21 Medal of Honor recipients.
One of them being Daniel Inouye, still currently sitting as a United States Senator, who lost his arm in Italy.
|
On January 03 2012 19:51 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 19:36 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 03 2012 18:24 mcc wrote:On January 03 2012 13:04 dmgdnooc wrote:
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR.
I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much.
What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland.
Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities.
But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not.
Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion.
And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany.
My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch.
Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death.
The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land.
There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat.
It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living.
It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement.
So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941. The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west. Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR. I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory. Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories.
Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began.
Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia.
So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration.
The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did.
More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain.
The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west.
And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied.
OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end.
It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation.
If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop.
But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
|
On January 03 2012 12:25 Too_MuchZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 08:41 Kukaracha wrote:On January 03 2012 02:19 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why? Meh, to remember is the very purpose of history. If you don't think a nation should remember that their army used Chinese peasants as guinea pigs, treating them like kettle (washing the unconscious bodies with cold water and a hard brush on an aluminium table), then you simply don't belong to this thread (which is about history, after all). Should I add that relatives of those who suffered those crimes are alive and want Japan to stop denying the facts? Their will alone is a good reason. Not long ago, a Japanese history teacher received death threats after lecturing his students about war crimes in Japan. If you think this is normal... When talking about History and teaching history to students its different. These war crimes are usually shown on TV documents which they belong. But does ordinary student really need to know all the killing methods and experiments? No. Usually World War II is taught certain order (at least my time it was). 1. Why and how it started. 2. Which countries were involved. 3. Key battles / turning points. 4. End of war and cost of it (deaths and such). Of course losing and winning side has "different" history about the war. We might talk about Finnish war heroes while Russians talk theirs and say that our heroes are war criminals. Just remember history is taught differently each country and you cant change it. Perhaps you should take some lessons from losing side schools/teachers to get idea why its different. This is a guess but I bet France teaches World War II more France point of view. More teaching about resistance fighters and brutality of Germans? What we are told about here at Finland? Only small details like German occupied France and then they fight it back with help of British / USA soldiers (and others smaller countries). Is it really necessary to know how Germans killed resistance fighters (executed or tortured etc) or how resistance fighters killed German soldiers. War is never clean, its dirty. When my teacher said that there was war crimes involved each side its not his/her thing to go through these things, its up to you.
No, there's actually a big chunk about France's collaboration with Germany, and atrocities committed by French people. We even learn - without going into detail, true - that the war of Algeria was a dirty war with a widespread use of torture.
Apologies aren't true apologies, as they're mentioned by a state, not a person; however, it's the symbol of acceptation. It's an addition to history, by simply saying "yes, we did it". History does repeat itself, but we can temper tragedies in advance by educating the population.
And it's important to educate the population with at least a glance of an enemy's point of view, and not indulge in a self-loving blind patriotism, which is something the japanese have been know to do since the Edo period. It's important to let a history teachers tell his fellow citizens about past crimes committed by their ancesters. It's important to ensure that he won't receive death threats if he does so.
Or maybe do you disagree and agree with those who wished him publicly hanged for his "lies and treason"?
Edit: however, I will agree that it's never perfect. An example would be the image given to Germany and especially to the German soldiers. The difference bewteen the Einsatzgruppen and the regular Wehrmacht is never underlined, and soldiers are never shown as regular people.
|
On January 03 2012 21:08 dmgdnooc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 19:51 Yuljan wrote:On January 03 2012 19:36 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 03 2012 18:24 mcc wrote:On January 03 2012 13:04 dmgdnooc wrote:
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR.
I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much.
What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland.
Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities.
But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not.
Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion.
And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany.
My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch.
Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death.
The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land.
There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat.
It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living.
It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement.
So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941. The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west. Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR. I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory. Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories. Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration. The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied. OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation. If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
Why would England and France ever let Germany take out USSR? Not declaring war because Germany takes Poland is one thing but letting Germany take out the USSR is just dumb.
|
On January 03 2012 21:08 dmgdnooc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 19:51 Yuljan wrote:On January 03 2012 19:36 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 03 2012 18:24 mcc wrote:On January 03 2012 13:04 dmgdnooc wrote:
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR.
I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much.
What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland.
Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities.
But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not.
Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion.
And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany.
My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch.
Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death.
The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land.
There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat.
It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living.
It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement.
So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941. The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west. Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR. I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory. Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories. Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration. The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied. OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation. If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved.
Your scenario is basically : If magic then something happens, because you cannot satisfy your starting assumptions by any other way than magic. There was no way for things to go that way no matter what decision Hitler made. Your scenario is not "what-if with benefit of the hindsight" it is "what-if magic made it so" as there is no way to achieve it by just changing decisions on part of Germany. Also your assumption about sure early victories in the east are far from clear as Wehrmacht was not ready to attack USSR in 1939/40 even more so than Red army was weaker in 1939 compared to 1941.
|
On January 03 2012 20:07 MHT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 12:25 Too_MuchZerg wrote:On January 03 2012 08:41 Kukaracha wrote:On January 03 2012 02:19 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why? Meh, to remember is the very purpose of history. If you don't think a nation should remember that their army used Chinese peasants as guinea pigs, treating them like kettle (washing the unconscious bodies with cold water and a hard brush on an aluminium table), then you simply don't belong to this thread (which is about history, after all). Should I add that relatives of those who suffered those crimes are alive and want Japan to stop denying the facts? Their will alone is a good reason. Not long ago, a Japanese history teacher received death threats after lecturing his students about war crimes in Japan. If you think this is normal... When talking about History and teaching history to students its different. These war crimes are usually shown on TV documents which they belong. But does ordinary student really need to know all the killing methods and experiments? No. Usually World War II is taught certain order (at least my time it was). 1. Why and how it started. 2. Which countries were involved. 3. Key battles / turning points. 4. End of war and cost of it (deaths and such). Of course losing and winning side has "different" history about the war. We might talk about Finnish war heroes while Russians talk theirs and say that our heroes are war criminals. Just remember history is taught differently each country and you cant change it. Perhaps you should take some lessons from losing side schools/teachers to get idea why its different. This is a guess but I bet France teaches World War II more France point of view. More teaching about resistance fighters and brutality of Germans? What we are told about here at Finland? Only small details like German occupied France and then they fight it back with help of British / USA soldiers (and others smaller countries). Is it really necessary to know how Germans killed resistance fighters (executed or tortured etc) or how resistance fighters killed German soldiers. War is never clean, its dirty. When my teacher said that there was war crimes involved each side its not his/her thing to go through these things, its up to you. Nothing was ever censored to us in school about the Nazis and what they did in the concentration camps. Why should the Japanese be treated any different? And why would it be good to censor what happened? Afraid the students are going to have nightmares and get scarred for life?
I didn't talk about censorship (but main reason is time limit on each subject at school) as students can get all information anyways. But its up to each country how they teach history. Most likely I was taught same way World War II history as you did. Some of the war crimes (holocaust and such) was described/written in my school book but most of I learned from getting information out of Internet (low amount that day though) and watching WWII documents (provided detailed information, killing methods and such).
Problem is that when you go too detail then some people might start hating other people what they did (some of my friends don't like Germans and others don't like Russians). If they would have not known these crimes that exactly perhaps they would not have negative imagine about them. Most people living right now has nothing to do with these crimes (over 60 years later of war)!
Perhaps Japan is waiting that all people who were involved World War II dies before starting to teach war crimes? They might have different family values and respect towards soldiers that time. Not everyone did horrible things.
On January 03 2012 22:08 Kukaracha wrote:
No, there's actually a big chunk about France's collaboration with Germany, and atrocities committed by French people. We even learn - without going into detail, true - that the war of Algeria was a dirty war with a widespread use of torture.
Apologies aren't true apologies, as they're mentioned by a state, not a person; however, it's the symbol of acceptation. It's an addition to history, by simply saying "yes, we did it". History does repeat itself, but we can temper tragedies in advance by educating the population.
And it's important to educate the population with at least a glance of an enemy's point of view, and not indulge in a self-loving blind patriotism, which is something the japanese have been know to do since the Edo period. It's important to let a history teachers tell his fellow citizens about past crimes committed by their ancesters. It's important to ensure that he won't receive death threats if he does so.
Or maybe do you disagree and agree with those who wished him publicly hanged for his "lies and treason"?
Edit: however, I will agree that it's never perfect. An example would be the image given to Germany and especially to the German soldiers. The difference bewteen the Einsatzgruppen and the regular Wehrmacht is never underlined, and soldiers are never shown as regular people.
I haven't read details about teacher getting death threats, but obviously its not correct way to handle it. Japan needs more time as I mentioned above reply.
|
On January 04 2012 05:55 Too_MuchZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 20:07 MHT wrote:On January 03 2012 12:25 Too_MuchZerg wrote:On January 03 2012 08:41 Kukaracha wrote:On January 03 2012 02:19 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
I still ask why? What good does it do to know what kind of experiments did Unit 731 do or POW camps? Is it your aim to make them feel sorry?
War is over. How has losing side done after that? They had no wars, but winning side has. Why? Meh, to remember is the very purpose of history. If you don't think a nation should remember that their army used Chinese peasants as guinea pigs, treating them like kettle (washing the unconscious bodies with cold water and a hard brush on an aluminium table), then you simply don't belong to this thread (which is about history, after all). Should I add that relatives of those who suffered those crimes are alive and want Japan to stop denying the facts? Their will alone is a good reason. Not long ago, a Japanese history teacher received death threats after lecturing his students about war crimes in Japan. If you think this is normal... When talking about History and teaching history to students its different. These war crimes are usually shown on TV documents which they belong. But does ordinary student really need to know all the killing methods and experiments? No. Usually World War II is taught certain order (at least my time it was). 1. Why and how it started. 2. Which countries were involved. 3. Key battles / turning points. 4. End of war and cost of it (deaths and such). Of course losing and winning side has "different" history about the war. We might talk about Finnish war heroes while Russians talk theirs and say that our heroes are war criminals. Just remember history is taught differently each country and you cant change it. Perhaps you should take some lessons from losing side schools/teachers to get idea why its different. This is a guess but I bet France teaches World War II more France point of view. More teaching about resistance fighters and brutality of Germans? What we are told about here at Finland? Only small details like German occupied France and then they fight it back with help of British / USA soldiers (and others smaller countries). Is it really necessary to know how Germans killed resistance fighters (executed or tortured etc) or how resistance fighters killed German soldiers. War is never clean, its dirty. When my teacher said that there was war crimes involved each side its not his/her thing to go through these things, its up to you. Nothing was ever censored to us in school about the Nazis and what they did in the concentration camps. Why should the Japanese be treated any different? And why would it be good to censor what happened? Afraid the students are going to have nightmares and get scarred for life? I didn't talk about censorship (but main reason is time limit on each subject at school) as students can get all information anyways. But its up to each country how they teach history. Most likely I was taught same way World War II history as you did. Some of the war crimes (holocaust and such) was described/written in my school book but most of I learned from getting information out of Internet (low amount that day though) and watching WWII documents (provided detailed information, killing methods and such). Problem is that when you go too detail then some people might start hating other people what they did (some of my friends don't like Germans and others don't like Russians). If they would have not known these crimes that exactly perhaps they would not have negative imagine about them. Most people living right now has nothing to do with these crimes (over 60 years later of war)! Perhaps Japan is waiting that all people who were involved World War II dies before starting to teach war crimes? They might different family values and respect towards soldiers that time. Not everyone did horrible things.
There is difference between the crimes committed by different countries. If Finland or Estonia distort history somewhat because of nationalistic reasons, not much bad can happen. When you are denying or putting under the carpet crimes such as Japan did in WW2 you have recipe for the possibility of the same crimes being repeated again sooner than if you take approach that Germany did. Japan just presents facade that they are actually sorry, but in actual actions shows total lack of anything learned from their past. Reasons are plenty, pride, "honor", nationalism, "image",... This approach just leads to a higher possibility of bad things happening in near future, because no lesson was learned, because young generations are taught silently that they did nothing wrong. Quite similar situation to Germany after WW1 and we all know how that ended up. Of course thankfully in case of Japan it won't probably lead there, because they are just not powerful enough and rich people do not like total wars and Japan is rich. But that does not change the fact that it is not healthy approach.
EDIT:As for more time, the time is already gone. The changes need to be institutionalized by the first hand participants like in Germany, not after 100 years. If you wait, the only thing you get is dry facts learned at school that mean nothing for the actual change that should be brought to lessen the chances of history repeating itself.
|
I don't think that the situation in Germany after WW1 and the one in Japan after WW2 are comparable in that aspect mcc.
|
On January 02 2012 12:11 FuzzyLord wrote:
Rule of War: Don't attack Russia. Ever. You'll Lose.
I thought you weren't supposed to attack Finland?
|
I think the focus is not just on the war itself but on the genocide and other crimes against humanity that were committed during wartime. In that regard, it should not be "up to each country how they teach history."
|
On January 04 2012 10:05 SilentchiLL wrote:
I don't think that the situation in Germany after WW1 and the one in Japan after WW2 are comparable in that aspect mcc.
Well they share a lot of common aspects, why do you think they are not even comparable ? I am aware of the differences, but there are also similarities.
|
On January 03 2012 22:25 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 21:08 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 03 2012 19:51 Yuljan wrote:On January 03 2012 19:36 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 03 2012 18:24 mcc wrote:On January 03 2012 13:04 dmgdnooc wrote:
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR.
I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much.
What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland.
Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities.
But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not.
Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion.
And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany.
My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch.
Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death.
The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land.
There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat.
It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living.
It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement.
So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941. The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west. Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR. I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory. Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories. Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration. The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied. OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation. If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved. Why would England and France ever let Germany take out USSR? Not declaring war because Germany takes Poland is one thing but letting Germany take out the USSR is just dumb.
Well, France was woefully unprepared for war (as was Britan - but less so) both would have relished a few years respite to build an adequate military. And, for this reason, the declaration of war made after the invasion of Poland was a surprise to both Hitler and the German High Command.
Britain and France both had treaties with Poland and had publicly warned Germany of their intentions to declare if Poland was molested, which created a domestic credability gap if war was not declared.
There was no such treaty or public warning concerning the USSR.
Britain had already fought one war against communist Russia (in 1919) and lost; so there were no historical ties that bound Britain to defend the USSR, quite the opposite in fact.
Now, there has been discussion on this thread that speculated about whether or not Germany could have ever defeated the USSR.
Reasoning has been put for both cases, but my point is that nazi dogma ensured that no matter when or how nazi Germany chose to attack the USSR it was doomed to fail.
Because, even regardless of their military superiority, the campaign would never be fought as a purely military matter that ended in a surrender, political accord and consequently livable occupation, as happened in France and elsewhere.
Nazi ideology required the extermination of the 'racially impure' Slavs and a subsequent German settlement of their empty lands.
This, to my mind, ensured Germany's eventual defeat in a war against the USSR.
Because it brought every living Slav into the fight against the German army.
|
On January 04 2012 01:40 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 21:08 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 03 2012 19:51 Yuljan wrote:On January 03 2012 19:36 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 03 2012 18:24 mcc wrote:On January 03 2012 13:04 dmgdnooc wrote:
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR.
I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much.
What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland.
Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities.
But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not.
Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion.
And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany.
My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch.
Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death.
The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land.
There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat.
It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living.
It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement.
So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941. The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west. Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR. I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory. Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories. Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration. The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied. OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation. If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved. Your scenario is basically : If magic then something happens, because you cannot satisfy your starting assumptions by any other way than magic. There was no way for things to go that way no matter what decision Hitler made. Your scenario is not "what-if with benefit of the hindsight" it is "what-if magic made it so" as there is no way to achieve it by just changing decisions on part of Germany. Also your assumption about sure early victories in the east are far from clear as Wehrmacht was not ready to attack USSR in 1939/40 even more so than Red army was weaker in 1939 compared to 1941.
The scenario is one that allows nazi Germany to attack the USSR earlier without the losses incurred in taking the west and leaving an occupying force behind.
It is a best case scenario that you can replace with any other that suits you.
My assumptions about early vicories are in accord with Stalin's own assesment.
He agreed to a secure border and non-aggression pact with Hitler because of his valid fears concerning German military superiority.
And that was the situation in 1939.
|
On January 04 2012 14:19 dmgdnooc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 01:40 mcc wrote:On January 03 2012 21:08 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 03 2012 19:51 Yuljan wrote:On January 03 2012 19:36 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 03 2012 18:24 mcc wrote:On January 03 2012 13:04 dmgdnooc wrote:
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR.
I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much.
What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland.
Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities.
But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not.
Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion.
And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany.
My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch.
Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death.
The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land.
There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat.
It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living.
It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement.
So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941. The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west. Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR. I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory. Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories. Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration. The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied. OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation. If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved. Your scenario is basically : If magic then something happens, because you cannot satisfy your starting assumptions by any other way than magic. There was no way for things to go that way no matter what decision Hitler made. Your scenario is not "what-if with benefit of the hindsight" it is "what-if magic made it so" as there is no way to achieve it by just changing decisions on part of Germany. Also your assumption about sure early victories in the east are far from clear as Wehrmacht was not ready to attack USSR in 1939/40 even more so than Red army was weaker in 1939 compared to 1941. The scenario is one that allows nazi Germany to attack the USSR earlier without the losses incurred in taking the west and leaving an occupying force behind. It is a best case scenario that you can replace with any other that suits you. My assumptions about early vicories are in accord with Stalin's own assesment. He agreed to a secure border and non-aggression pact with Hitler because of his valid fears concerning German military superiority. And that was the situation in 1939.
Stalin's assessment was wrong in the sense that though Red army was not adequately prepared to fight Germany so was Germany not ready to fight Soviet Union, and fears do not equal reality, he overestimated Germany's ability. In 1939 Germany encountered quite severe logistical problems in their war against Poland with massive losses of equipment, the same logistical problems and lack of equipment were present in invasion of France, how do you think they would fare in Russia with its vast distances and climate. They had no ability to attack Soviet Union in 1939, that it the fact of life. In all campaigns in 1939-1940 Germany was walking very close to maximum abilities of their armies.
On the other hand losses incurred in taking the west were more than outweighed by material and equipment captured in the West (and in Poland) and more importantly between 1939-1941 Germany was finally able to produce enough to think about attacking Soviet Union. Earlier attack was simply not feasible. Not even mentioning that in real-life Hitler would actually have to leave more troops at the western border in your scenario than it took to occupy the west. There was no way he could be sure the allies would not attack when he was in the war with USSR. As someone mentioned it seems you play too much Hearts of Iron to think your plan was even feasible in real life 
But that is actually beside the point as my main point of contention was that Poland would not cede the corridor without war in any conceivable scenario other than magic hand-waving. That is why I am saying even your scenario's starting point is not achievable. So how do you as Germany force Poland to cede the corridor. You know that Germany tried to gain it diplomatically and failed and that is what lead to attack on Poland, right ?
|
On January 04 2012 16:01 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 14:19 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 04 2012 01:40 mcc wrote:On January 03 2012 21:08 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 03 2012 19:51 Yuljan wrote:On January 03 2012 19:36 dmgdnooc wrote:On January 03 2012 18:24 mcc wrote:On January 03 2012 13:04 dmgdnooc wrote:
If the forum must search, in hindsight, for a 'what if' that allows Germany to have won the war it should be considered that, to my mind at least and this is my 2 cents worth, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was Hitler's 1st major error of judgement.
The Polish government was sympathetic to nazi doctrines, being anti-communist and anti-semitic pseudo nazis themselves, and could surely have been pressured into ceding the Danzig corridor and allowing access for a full strength, 1939 or 1940, attack on a grossly under-prepared USSR.
I don't think that, after the intimidation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, there was a certain requirement to invade Poland in order to attack the communist enemy that Hitler loathed so much.
What was required was the application of diplomatic pressure that ensured the security of Germany's western regions and the further passive compliance of Britain, France and Poland.
Poland could be annexed later, France and Britain humiliated later, but leaving the USSR to grow stronger was a mistake.
Upsetting Britain and France out of their appeasement strategy was a gross underestimation of their domestic political liabilities.
But would they have really declared against Germany's invasion of the USSR if Polish sovereignty remained, even if only superficially, intact? I think, most probably, not.
Both countries had strong, politically active and influential internal nazi factions to support the invasion.
And neither seemed to be much interested in attacking Germany even when 70% of its army was engaged in Poland; which was surely the best time to attack and at least level the industrial complexes of the Saar.
It seems to me that the western campaign and the conquest of France served to delay the inevitable invasion of the USSR long enough for the USSR to become strong enough to resist and depleted Germany of men and materiel that were needed for a victory in the east.
But, even under this best case scenario of earlier and stronger invasion, I doubt that victory could have been achieved against the USSR by nazi Germany.
My doubts stem from the nazi's oft demonstrated lethal contempt for all untermensch.
Their unquestioning and unfailing racism against the Slavic peoples transformed a military campaign into a war of extermination that ensured that, even when defeated, Germany's enemies remained enemies to the death.
The peoples of the USSR understood that they were not fighting to retain their autonomy or sense of national pride nor their ancient attachment to the land.
There would be no, further down the road and eventually, benevolent occupational government; only slave labour, starvation and a killing pit, for all Slavs, would follow the nation's defeat.
It seems to me that nazi doctrine ensured that the USSR would fight to the last tooth and fingernail accepting all losses as a price in blood for the survival of the living.
It was the nazi goal, equally in 1939 and 1941, to cleanse the captured territories of inhabitants making way for German settlement.
So, the Slavic peoples of the USSR could never capitulate, never surrender, nazi ideology put them in the invincible position of 'victory or death'.
It is highly unlikely that Poland could have been pressured into ceding Danzig and the corridor, they had rather nationalistic government, but there was extreme mistrust of Germany in Poland and if you check Polish history, they always fought even if the human losses were going to be great and victory unlikely. And even if they ceded the corridor invasion of Soviet Union would be unsuccessful wihout using the rest of Polish territory for staging the invasion, which is even more unlikely scenario. Not even mentioning that German Army that could be used in attack was also much weaker in 1939 than in 1941. The proposed action to make an 'ally' of Poland, thereby side-stepping offence to Britain and France, allows Britain and France to remain non-belligerent and nazi policy in the east to unfold without the complication of a second front in the west. Nazi enmity demanded a war against the USSR, the 'what if' I propose is the what if they were allowed to pursue that war unencumbered by strife in the west. What if the diplomatic manoeuvring had ensured a stable western border and non-aggression with Britain and France rather than stability with the USSR. I suppose that even if the nazi priority had been the destruction of communism and they had been permitted to pursue that aim free from other entanglements that nazi Germany would still have lost in the end. Nazi ideological racism ensured that Slavic resistance would be implacably and unendingly to the death. There could be no surrender and occupation, as there was in France; no overtures of peace, as were made to Britain. The conclusion of the matter in the east, from the nazi pov, was the annihalation of the Slavs as a people and German settlement of the empty lands. I suppose that the 'victory or death' scenario imposed on the USSR ensured their eventual victory. Hitler needed the succesful wars in Poland and France to consolidate his position. There was a plot going on in the military that would have staged a coup if Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. I have seen a documentary once that described how the population wasnt really happy about the war unlike ww1. Only after the quick victory in poland and the succesful campaign in france did Hitler receive the wide support of the population. I dont think he could have invaded Russia without the prior victories. Czechoslovakia had already been carved up by the time that WW2 began. Germany had annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 and in early 1939 had imposed the occupation of the Czech part of the state, which included the regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Selesia. So I do not see how Czechoslovakia could have been invaded when it was already mostly an occupied region under German administration. The certain early victories of an eastern campaign would have swayed public opinion in favor of the war just as well as the victories over Poland and France did. More so, as an eastern campaign was against the despised Slavs, the hated communist ideology, had the prospect of greater booty and access to resources and, on paper at least, the military objectives seemed certain. The invasion of France, revenge for WW1 and the humiliation of the west, could wait; while being important in the long term, they were not of immediate necessity because Germany could not conceivably expand west. And the invasion of Poland exposed the Saar to immanent destruction while the bulk of the army was elsewhere occupied. OK, so I will repeat myself again, I proposed a 'what if' with the benefit of hindsight and suppose that even with a secure western border and the whole of Germany's forces engaged in the east the campaign would still have failed in the end. It would have failed because there was no political accord that nazism could make with the conquered Slavs, all its ideological force required that the Slavs be annihalated en masse; and the Slavs would never consent to their own annihalation. If 'victory or death' had not been the only options given to the Slavs then Stalin may have been overthrown, an accord entered into, and peace allowed to develop. But nazism conceded no other options to the Slavs and this implacable policy ensured that the Slavs would continue to fight until victory had been achieved. Your scenario is basically : If magic then something happens, because you cannot satisfy your starting assumptions by any other way than magic. There was no way for things to go that way no matter what decision Hitler made. Your scenario is not "what-if with benefit of the hindsight" it is "what-if magic made it so" as there is no way to achieve it by just changing decisions on part of Germany. Also your assumption about sure early victories in the east are far from clear as Wehrmacht was not ready to attack USSR in 1939/40 even more so than Red army was weaker in 1939 compared to 1941. The scenario is one that allows nazi Germany to attack the USSR earlier without the losses incurred in taking the west and leaving an occupying force behind. It is a best case scenario that you can replace with any other that suits you. My assumptions about early vicories are in accord with Stalin's own assesment. He agreed to a secure border and non-aggression pact with Hitler because of his valid fears concerning German military superiority. And that was the situation in 1939. Stalin's assessment was wrong in the sense that though Red army was not adequately prepared to fight Germany so was Germany not ready to fight Soviet Union, and fears do not equal reality, he overestimated Germany's ability. In 1939 Germany encountered quite severe logistical problems in their war against Poland with massive losses of equipment, the same logistical problems and lack of equipment were present in invasion of France, how do you think they would fare in Russia with its vast distances and climate. They had no ability to attack Soviet Union in 1939, that it the fact of life. In all campaigns in 1939-1940 Germany was walking very close to maximum abilities of their armies. On the other hand losses incurred in taking the west were more than outweighed by material and equipment captured in the West (and in Poland) and more importantly between 1939-1941 Germany was finally able to produce enough to think about attacking Soviet Union. Earlier attack was simply not feasible. Not even mentioning that in real-life Hitler would actually have to leave more troops at the western border in your scenario than it took to occupy the west. There was no way he could be sure the allies would not attack when he was in the war with USSR. As someone mentioned it seems you play too much Hearts of Iron to think your plan was even feasible in real life But that is actually beside the point as my main point of contention was that Poland would not cede the corridor without war in any conceivable scenario other than magic hand-waving. That is why I am saying even your scenario's starting point is not achievable. So how do you as Germany force Poland to cede the corridor. You know that Germany tried to gain it diplomatically and failed and that is what lead to attack on Poland, right ?
So OK, Stalin and the USSR military establishment were wrong, with all the information at their disposal, and you are right.
And, clearly, I think that the German forces would fair badly in any attempt to conquer Russia, no matter when the attack wa made or how good there equipment and resupply situation was.
Nazi ideology demanded an attack on the USSR since, at least, 1925 when Mein Kampf was published. So the thought, the intention and the will had been in existence for some time before 1941.
There was no time when an attack on the USSR was feasible; earlier or later it was doomed to failure.
I have never played Hearts of Iron, though I have enjoyed many games of Civ, but I have studied WW2 extensively, especially aspects of the Holocaust.
You underestimate the value of diplomacy and the gains that can be achieved by its considered application.
The Polish government, wannabe nazis that it was, did not want war with Germany.
There was little trust in the promises of Britain and France and even if they did honor them, as surprisingly they did, there was nothing that they could do about the situation in Poland until after Germany had been conquered.
An agreement that ensured a form of autonomy and guaranteed non-aggression, even alliance, could have conceivably been brokered as an alternative to the destruction of the state.
German diplomacy failed to gain the Danzig corridor because Hitler was not prepared to offer enough for the concession, not because it was not negotiable.
Now, all I have done is set up a scenario that allows my point to be made; that nazi racism ensured defeat, under any circumstance (barring nukes), in an attack on the USSR.
How about you address the point and not the fluff that introduces it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
