New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.

Which was the historic action in which Germany was defeated

Dunkirk, 1940
1
7%
Battle of Britain, 1940
1
7%
Battle of the Atlantic, 1940-1943
2
13%
Changing the axis of advance from Moscow to Kiev, summer 1941
2
13%
At the gates of Moscow, fall and winter 1941
2
13%
Declaring the war to USA, winter 1941
3
20%
Battle of Stalingrad 1942-1943
4
27%
El Alamein and North Africa 1942-1943
0
No votes
Daylight strategic bombing over Germany, 1943-1944
0
No votes
Kursk, summer 1943
0
No votes
Normandy, June 6th, 1944
0
No votes
Battle of the Bulge, winter 1944-1945
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 15

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by RF »

Taking your points in turn, firstly if the Heer had concentrated on Moscow then it is likely, even with its logistical difficulties, to have taken it in August because of the lack of time the Soviets would have had to prepare its defenses and build up their reserves to the west of the city. Like Napoleon in 1812, Moscow could have fallen to the Germans in August with barely a shot fired in its defence.... By October the Soviets had eight weeks to prepare - we know the rest.

Secondly Gorky was not a bad choice, particulary if all the railways around Moscow were destroyed. Logistically the Soviets would be inconvenienced, but the Germans would be in a far worse position logistically, as they would be drawn a further 500 miles eastwards....And with winter coming....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by Vic Dale »

RF wrote:
Vic Dale wrote:
The last thing Hitler wanted was a war with Britain or France.

Vic Dale
In which case Hitler would have reacted to the British ultimatum on 3 September 1939, called a ceasefire and withdrawal in Poland and begin another ''Munich'' style conferance which Mussolini had already proposed.....
But he didn't, he wanted his war.

Yes.

Wrong pact. I was writing on the fly at the time these things happen.

I think everyone knows which pact I mean The one between Chamberlain and Pilsudski.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by RF »

Vic, read my posts! Pilsudski was dead before Chamberlain became British PM!
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by lwd »

RF wrote:Taking your points in turn, firstly if the Heer had concentrated on Moscow then it is likely, even with its logistical difficulties, to have taken it in August because of the lack of time the Soviets would have had to prepare its defenses and build up their reserves to the west of the city. Like Napoleon in 1812, Moscow could have fallen to the Germans in August with barely a shot fired in its defence.... By October the Soviets had eight weeks to prepare - we know the rest.
I'm not exactly sure what your mean by concentrating on Moscow but in any case I don't think it was possible to take Moscow in August. Consider that if the Germans advance along a single narow front toward Moscow it creates a number of problems for them.
1) They are relying on few logistics routes. They may be able to get these in a bit better shape but the total throughput is going to be less.
2) Moving additional troops and logistics forces along this narrow channel is going to increase the demands on it.
3) If they don't attack along a borad front then Soviet formations that were destroyed historically are still alive and well. These can be either commited to counter offensives (absorbing more suplies from the already strained logistics network even if they are unscucessful) or be moved in front of the German offensive to slow it down. The rail head in Moscow means the Soviets can move troops faster from further away to the front than the Germans can.
4) As it was the Germans in the east were operating at a supply deficit when they were attacking. Once they got well to the east it took substantial time to get them resupplied.
Secondly Gorky was not a bad choice, particulary if all the railways around Moscow were destroyed. Logistically the Soviets would be inconvenienced, but the Germans would be in a far worse position logistically, as they would be drawn a further 500 miles eastwards....And with winter coming....
It may well be the best choice but the question is is it good enough?
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by Vic Dale »

RF wrote: Vic, describing Poland as ''semi-fascist already'' seems to imply that the country was not worthy of British support and should have been abandoned to Hitler. The fact that Poland had participated in the final rape of Czechoslovakia by annexing Teschen does not mean that Poland was a potential ally of Hitler.

Can you also note that Pilsudski died in 1935. His period of control in Poland spanned more of the 1920's than the 1930''s. You have made several references to Pilsudski in 1939, for the record the president of Poland in 1939 was Ignacy Moscicki. As Poland was attacked on 1 September 1939 I don't think he would or should have been in a position to ''back down.''
I wrote Pilsudski when I should have written Poland. I never followed Poland's internal development, so a mistake like this is not surprising. Pilsudski was a rabid anti-communist and what he established continued after his death. Poland was semi-fascist.

The title fascist has been wrongly taken to mean any anti-working class dictatorship by the unltra-left, but fascism is a particular form, in that it mobilises a mass movement against the working class, based on the middle class and peasantry as opposed to a dictator who simply takes over the nation by military force. If this distinction is missed then Hitler, Mussolini and Franco are put into the same basket as Idi Amin, Pinochet and Batista. It is true they were all bastards and perhaps power mad, but their political modus operandi were entirely different and so too was their method of attaining power.

The facsists came to power at the head of mass movements, whereas Amin, Pinochet and Batista used the existing power of their military positions. The fascists organised civil war and tore their countries apart to acheive their rule whereas the military dictators simply used their existing armed force to liquidate opposition. Hitler himself tried this latter road to power in 1923 when he tried his putsch with the support of elements of the German army.

If we simply identifiy dictators as power mad and willing to use live ammunition against their own populatins, then we can put Hitler, Amin and Stalin into the same bag and I don't think anyone who is prepared to use their brain would settle for that.

Without identifying the distinction between these different types of dictator, their respective actions become simply an expression of a natural development of the nations they dominated and to single out a particular case, the holocaust becomes a purely German thing, when history shows that pogroms against sections of society delineated by caste, religious creed or tribe are the resort of despots when their internal policy fails.

In 1935 there was never a hint of alliance between Hitler and Mussolini. Alliances were things developed on the spur of the moment and the economic instability of the whole of the 1930s produced some very odd bed-fellows. The left were considering how they would react on policy in a war between fascist Germany and fascist Italy. There was also the possibility of war between France and Italy. The 30s saw Europe hanging in the balance, one major power, France, was dominant, but was fast losing it's grip. Somebody would eventually take over the lead. There was no possibility of establshing a peaceful civil control combining all nations as we appear to have since WWII. All attempts at this pre-war simply resulted in paralysis and treaties and agreements were simply over ridden when it was seen that some element favoured one at the expense of another.

I firmly maintain that war has it's base cause in economic antagonism and oddly enough, peace has been had between the European powers since the establishment of the EEC The European ECONOMIC Community. An economic trading block has united in common purpose, all the differerent nations with their differing economic needs. It has established commonality between manufactuing nations and agrarian nations large and small and has even begun the first steps towards founding a binding federation - an insipient super-nation to equal the USA.

So if a semogly enduring peace can have it's origins in economic agreements, then war too has it's foundations in economy. That is not socialist ideaology it is fact.

As regards semi-fascist Poland not being a worthy ally of Britain, I would pojnt out that Britain has had alliances with some of the most vile murderers in world history, Stalin, Amin and about 20 other bloody murderers in Africa this present day. How about the Shah of Iran, or Saddam Hussein. Britain has not been coy about about siding up to men with blood on their hands, if she can find common economic interest. The British ruling estabilshmet were cock-a-hoop over Mussolini's acheivements in suppressing communism in Italy.

When we examine exactly who the dictators have murdered during their time of rule, we find that the vast majority were working people. The Jews who went to the death camps were workers and much smaller numbers of middle class. Rich Jews were often let off the hook by Goering and the other nazis tops, despite the protests of the lower echelons of the nazi structure. It is a sad sad fact that sympathy has often settled on those families who enjoyed the luxury of upper-middle clsss life - because they had the most to lose. What of the Jewish workers whose daily drudgery hardly fed their families who were then put into labour camps and further worked until death.

I do not apologise for my class analysis and insistence on economics as the cause of strife among humans around the world, because it is the only thing that actaully makes sense out of the madness of the 20th century and the bloody opening chapters of the 21st. All wars are fought over economy,from the tribes fighting over the herd, or other foods, through the Roman and Norman conquests hungry for territory from which to feed and keep their own people content, to the feudal kings and queens who could not develop the means of production themselves and sought conquest and viurtual enslavement of foreign peoples as a solution.

Although slavery and feudalism were not wiped out, they were replaced as the dominant economic forms by capitalism. Without saying a single word about right or wrong in relation to this economic system, it is and has been the dominant arbiter in international relations for more then 200 years. All political considerations both foreign and internal are worked out in accord with economic needs. Look to any hot-spot internationally and you will find an economic cause of the problem, beit the Kurds, the Ayatollahs, Georgia, Afghanistan and others.

As regards Poland's position on September 1st 1939, the die was cast back on the 29th March that year when Chamberlain made the pact and demonstrated that he would now oppose Hitler. Until that time, Chamberlain had given Hitler every encouragement to expand and this expansion saw the end of France's hegemony in Europe.

Hilter's approach to Pilsudski was for an economic agreement to secure the port of Danzig (not a military hinge) and a link road, so that Germany's internal trade could be conducted without going through foreign ports - again economic. This was the cause of the dispute between Germany and Poland and though this dispute was not the cause of the war in Europe, it was the trigger. The war itself had been building since the Armistice. The 14-18 war had been brought short, so the natural post war reshaping of the economic structure of Europe was not properly formed.

If WWI had been fought to a proper conclusion, one power should have emerged victorious and then there could be no questioning who would rule. That nation would then control how Eurpoe or a sizeable portion of it would developed. As it was, the end of the war saw the protagonists utterly exhausted and with nothing gained from this disasterous and expensive war. The powers drew back and tried to acheive by diplomacy what they could not get by force of arms. Nobody could reap the economic rewards of victory and surprisingly the only ones who eventually gained, were those whose shattered economies had the farthest to go in rebuilding their economies. France and Britain could bleed their colonies to make up their economic shortfall, whilst Germany had to do it all internally. It made her fitter and stronger. Before Hitler came to power BTW.

Notably, it is the strongest economies of the world who have the most powerful armed forces and it is generally the ones with the worst economic problems who use them.

We live in very dangerous times.

Vic Dale
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by lwd »

Vic Dale wrote: ..The title fascist has been wrongly taken to mean any anti-working class dictatorship by the unltra-left, ...
I don't think I've ever seen that definition. Usually it's used to mean a type of right wing dictatorship. And not necessarily anti-working class.
... in that it mobilises a mass movement against the working class, based on the middle class and peasantry ...
News flash. Most consider the middle class and "peasantry" to be part of the working class.
The facsists came to power at the head of mass movements, whereas Amin, Pinochet and Batista used the existing power of their military positions. The fascists organised civil war and tore their countries apart to acheive their rule whereas the military dictators simply used their existing armed force to liquidate opposition....
I don't remember reading about a civil war in Italy and Franco clearly used Spains existing armed forces.
...I firmly maintain that war has it's base cause in economic antagonism ...So if a semogly enduring peace can have it's origins in economic agreements, then war too has it's foundations in economy. That is not socialist ideaology it is fact.
Not the way you are stating it. Foreign relations of any sort clearly take ecomic concerns into consideration. However they are not necessarily the only or even the dominant factor in all cases. IE you are over generalizing.
.... All wars are fought over economy,...
Repeating it does not make it any more correct. A hint here absolutes are almost never correct.
... All political considerations both foreign and internal are worked out in accord with economic needs. Look to any hot-spot internationally and you will find an economic cause of the problem, ...
Just because econmics play a part does not mean that they are the fundamental cause.
As regards Poland's position on September 1st 1939, the die was cast back on the 29th March that year when Chamberlain made the pact and demonstrated that he would now oppose Hitler. Until that time, Chamberlain had given Hitler every encouragement to expand ...
This is simply not true. He opposed German expansion. Perhaps not as much as he could have but oppose he did and he certainly didn't offer "every encouragement".
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by Vic Dale »

RF wrote: Secondly Gorky was not a bad choice, particulary if all the railways around Moscow were destroyed. Logistically the Soviets would be inconvenienced, but the Germans would be in a far worse position logistically, as they would be drawn a further 500 miles eastwards....And with winter coming....
If Stalin had been standing on fim ground, what you say would have probaly held, but the ground was shaking under his feet. The German plan relied heavily on Stalin being deposed by his own people and the German army wintering in Moscow and other Russian cities.

We have to be clear that though Hitler and Stalin were bloody dictators their origins and rise to power were totally different. Their respective power bases were entirely different too, Hitler rose on the backs of the peasants and middle class against the massed ranks of the industrial working class, who were seeking power through revolution. Stalin rose partially as a result of a successful social revolution headed by the industrial working class - the proletariat. He gained hegemony as a result of international isolation of Russia and the resultant bureaucratic decay.

The economy stumbled along under Stalin's heavy and untalented hand and though the bureacracy caused more problems than it solved with Idiotic plans and lunatic policy, being released from the constraints of the feudalism of the czar, the economy grew by staggering degrees. It grew fast, much like Britain France and the USA after rubbing out or shedding the control of the kings and moving on to the industrail revolution. Russian progress was faster than it's predecessors due to industrial planning as opposed to relying on blind economic forces.

It had the models of production already in existence in the capitalist countries, so it's development could accelerate having no need for the trial and error of developing a means of production. Lenin was well aware of the abilities of capitalism to produce and his plan included building Russian industry by giving cheap government loans to industry privately owned or otherwise, in order to develop the means of production. Lenin applied a light rein to the economy. Stalin who came after him applied the reins and the whip heavily. A fast and very great development all told, but very costly in lives - it must have been hell.

The Russian regime was hated by the rulers and upper echelons of Europe and they could not wait to patch up their differences of WWI and get to grips with the Russians, whose only real crime was pulling out of that terrible war. Even Germany did not forgive that. Russia emerged from that war of intervention victorious, but without the socalist economy which had been hoped for. Without the socialist element of the revolution, the revolution would not survive, but before Lenin could reassert the authority of workers control, Stalin had him murdered and seized the reins. He then set about liquidating all of the original central commitee.

The rise of Stalin actually represents a counter-revolution. Using state power, he obliterated Lenin's original democracy, though he did keep the planned element of the economy in place. There is a very good reason for this, Russia had a fairly advanced economy on the lines of modern capitalist production, but with no capitalist class in place to make it run. The state had to run it instead. That is why it was centrally directed. It was not at all in line with the "democratic centralism"of Lenin and nor was it a capitalist economy.

Germany had been part of the war of intervention in Russia, designed and intended by the nations of Europe to destroy the revolution and prevent their own people getting ideas. Hitler's foreign policy towards Russia was a continuation of that policy worked out in 1918.

In a way, the Russian campaign of the 1940s reflects Hitler's method and attitude to his other territorial conquests, in that it relied on civil unrest and not military might alone.

The loss of Moscow would have been the final straw for Stalin. We saw how the Germans were welcomed by the civic powers even though resisted by partisans in the advance toward Moscow. It did not take long after the war for Stalin to become dead. It wasn't old age that got him, many think he was poisoned. That the Russian nation made a new turn immediately Kruschev took over indicates something of a palace coup. So in all likelihood the ground had been prepared in advance for Stalin's untimely demise and very likely it was his military victory at Moscow which preserved his life for a few more years, until the military could
take their revenge for the 1930s purges.

I doubt very much that Stalin would be able to recover after a deafet at Moscow. Having studied the man, I believe he would have sued for peace, giving Russia to Germany lock, stock and barrel in return for a life in exile somewhere - away from the revenge of his tired and sorely tried people.

I think Hitler's turn south in August was a huge mistake and probably locked the door to Moscow, though the battle for Moscow would have to be fought in order to rob the German army of strength and it's best frontline troops and inflict a defeat on the hitherto unbeaten German army. This would ensure that continuation of the war could only result in the exhaustion of both sides at best and at worst, well Stalingrad and Kursk testify to that.

Vic Dale
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by lwd »

Vic Dale wrote: ...Hitler rose on the backs of the peasants and middle class against the massed ranks of the industrial working class, who were seeking power through revolution. ...
Not quite. Hitler had a fair amount of support in at least parts of the "industrial working class". Furthermore the number "seeking power through revolution" was of minimal signifigance.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by Bgile »

I'm not sure there is a "working class" in the USA.

We have a group of very wealthy individuals who constitute a very small percentage of the population. They are often heads of corporations or from old families who have inherited money.

Then next group is lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, accountants, etc who are very well paid but aren't part of the first group because of the way they earn their money and the fact that they aren't nearly as wealthy.

A large group of people who are skilled workers but not one of the professions above and make considerably less.

The minimum wage workers doing relatively unskilled labor.

The people who can't or won't work.

Which one is the "working class"????
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by Vic Dale »

lwd wrote:
Vic Dale wrote: ...Hitler rose on the backs of the peasants and middle class against the massed ranks of the industrial working class, who were seeking power through revolution. ...
Not quite. Hitler had a fair amount of support in at least parts of the "industrial working class". Furthermore the number "seeking power through revolution" was of minimal signifigance.

I don't dispute that Hitler had some support among industrial workers, but that was not his power-base. The lunatic Stalin instructed the German communist party to assist the nazis in smashing up SPD meetings during his "third period madness".

For anyone interested in this, Stalin insisted that capitalism was finished. It had gone through it's first period of development from throwing off the shackles of feudalism and freeing it's markets. It then advanced to it's second period, the development of the industrial revolution and now having expanded to it's limits had polluted the world and was in decay and terminal decline. Such an outlook was ultra-left and it led Stalin to believe that the only thing supporting capitalism was the lack of fight among workers leaders.

His international dictum was "smash the unholy alliance between the workers organisations and capital" and from there it was an easy step to instruct the CP to attack the "Bourgeois" workers parties. The German SPD - the traditional party of working people, though not based on trade unions - was dong all it could to help the German economy and this clearly included import controls and other trade barriers to help it's own industrialists and also with the aim of creating jobs and protecting those jobs already in existence. This support for industrialists was like a red rag to a bull for Stalin. The SPD was not a revolutionary party and no doubt it played a reactionary role at times, but with the fascists on the rise this was not the time for armed aggression against what workers generally saw as their party. If the CP was going to become the mass party of German workers, it would have to capture their hearts and minds in open debate, but then the CP under Stalin was never very good at that.

Stalin like so many others misjudged the nazis and even today the lessons have not been learned, especially by leading politicians who still insisit on using the incorrect formulation; "The fascism of the left and the fascism of the right." Fascism isn't just something nasty, it is a specific political force, a vicious right wing doctrine designed to smash workers organisations, to set the clock back on safety at work and to generally drive down their living standards, at the same time as demanding ever greater productivity - that is why the German industrialists were happy to fund Hitler.

Before anyone gets too worked up and feaful, there is very little possiblity of fascism gaining a foothold in an advanced industrial nation again, because the class forces on which it depepnds are no longer in existence in the correct ratios. Where heavy industry prevails, the peasantry is not present in large numbers, where the peasantry is very large, there is little manufacturing industry, so contrary to how the ultra-left keep warning us, no more Hitlers or Mussolinis. That does not however rule out rightwing military coups. States of emergency usually precede such developments. I think we may see some soon.

Vic Dale
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by Vic Dale »

Bgile wrote:I'm not sure there is a "working class" in the USA.

We have a group of very wealthy individuals who constitute a very small percentage of the population. They are often heads of corporations or from old families who have inherited money.

Then next group is lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, accountants, etc who are very well paid but aren't part of the first group because of the way they earn their money and the fact that they aren't nearly as wealthy.

A large group of people who are skilled workers but not one of the professions above and make considerably less.

The minimum wage workers doing relatively unskilled labor.

The people who can't or won't work.

Which one is the "working class"????
Anyone who sells his time to another person or organisation on a regualr basis is a worker. It doesn't matter what work is done, by hand or by brain it is still work.

There has been a massive campaign of disinformation internationally since the 1980s which tried to convince workers that because they are not on the bottom rung of society they are somehow middle class. They even tried that here with nurses!!! Some even fell for it - for a time. Happily people are begining to wake up to reality.

As a rough guide, for those who remain confused, if you have to report to a certain place or do certain things each day, each week, each month. year in year out and on which depends whether or not you will be paid, then you are a worker. Make no mistake about that.

Unemployment is a disease which wreaks havoc on lives often carrying over into the next generations. Mass unemployment was engineered as a threat to those with jobs to keep their noses to the grindstone lest they lose their jobs. The cover name for this was "the army of reserved labour" The unemployed have been a very worthwhile tool for frightening workers into not striking for better wages. It has not cost the bosses a thing, since the government covers the cost.

Vic Dale
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by Bgile »

Vic Dale wrote: Anyone who sells his time to another person or organisation on a regualr basis is a worker. It doesn't matter what work is done, by hand or by brain it is still work.

There has been a massive campaign of disinformation internationally since the 1980s which tried to convince workers that because they are not on the bottom rung of society they are somehow middle class. They even tried that here with nurses!!! Some even fell for it - for a time. Happily people are begining to wake up to reality.

As a rough guide, for those who remain confused, if you have to report to a certain place or do certain things each day, each week, each month. year in year out and on which depends whether or not you will be paid, then you are a worker. Make no mistake about that.

Unemployment is a disease which wreaks havoc on lives often carrying over into the next generations. Mass unemployment was engineered as a threat to those with jobs to keep their noses to the grindstone lest they lose their jobs. The cover name for this was "the army of reserved labour" The unemployed have been a very worthwhile tool for frightening workers into not striking for better wages. It has not cost the bosses a thing, since the government covers the cost.

Vic Dale
Well, then we don't have a middle class, unless you refer to the small business owners. For example, the owner of a small restaurant would be middle class by your definition, but a lawyer working for a law firm that he has to show up at every day wouldn't be middle class. Most doctors work for a big company like Kaiser HMO. They make lots of money, but they have to show up every day and work certain hours. It sure doesn't have anything to do with income, because doctors and lawyers can be wealthy individuals because of their pay scale.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by lwd »

Vic Dale wrote: Anyone who sells his time to another person or organisation on a regualr basis is a worker. It doesn't matter what work is done, by hand or by brain it is still work.

There has been a massive campaign of disinformation internationally since the 1980s which tried to convince workers that because they are not on the bottom rung of society they are somehow middle class. They even tried that here with nurses!!! Some even fell for it - for a time. Happily people are begining to wake up to reality....
Sounds to me like you are redefineing the terms to fit your ideology. I don't know about other but I don't accept your definition of classes for sure. Not sure about the rest.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by RF »

We now seem to have two separate threads running here, one military concerning Barbarossa, the other political concerning matters of ideology and background to dictatorships. Perhaps Jose can separate these two themes into separate threads as it is getting difficult two keep track of two separate discussions within this thread.

Coming back to the issues raised in lwd's post responding to my suggestion Moscow could have fallen in August 1941, I think it is possible, and General Marks, the author of the original plan also thought so.
By the end of July 1941 the northern prong of Barbarossa, advancing through the Baltic states had almost reached Lenningrad, securing the northern flank of any concentrated thrust on Moscow. So Army Group Centre would have a fairly based broad thrust on Moscow, without facing up to one million of the Soviet troops they did face in the encirclement battles of October 1941 when the drive to Moscow was finally actioned. Yes there would be huge logistical problems in supply, but the reduced scale of organised resistence and friendler local populationsd would in part alleviate this.
The southern flank would also be a problem, as the German panzers here were slowed down by the slow advancing Romanian forces. But again a lack of concentrated, organised resistence, the possibility of an anti-Soviet uprising in the Ukraine (had the Germans encouraged it) could have removed any serious threat from that direction.
My overall view is that if Hitler had followed the original Barbarossa plan, and encouraged anti-communist support within the invasion areas, Barbarossa would have succeeded by September 1941. But that is merely my opinion.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: New Poll: critical moment for Germany

Post by RF »

Vic Dale wrote:
I wrote Pilsudski when I should have written Poland. I never followed Poland's internal development, so a mistake like this is not surprising. Pilsudski was a rabid anti-communist and what he established continued after his death. Poland was semi-fascist.

Vic Dale
In view of the second sentence quoted above, I am wondering how you can make the statement in fourth and last sentence.

Pilsudski fought against the Red Army in 1920/1921 and was a hero in establishing Polish independence from Russia at that time. So it is not surprising that he was ''anti-communist.''

Poland in the late 1930's was not Pilsudski. The Polish government wanted reasonably friendly relations with Germany to counterbalance any threat from the east, if as expected the Russians would try to take back the enlarged area of eastern Poland which Pilsudski had annexed. That is why they signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1934.
Semi-fascist is a nebulous label and can mean anything you wish. The fact is that the Poles were fairly concilitary towards the Germans up to 1939, the diplomatic aggression from March 1939 onwards came from the Germans. Yes the British guaranteed Polish independence at that time, as they also did to several other countries including Roumania - something that was in line with the existing French system of alliances going back to the 1920's. But Poland did not pick a fight with Germany.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Locked