Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 3rd, 2017, 10:23 AM   #81

jgrooms's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Shawnee
Posts: 358

This is a great read in general and the parallel lives approach details this thread topic well.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/03/bo...ted=all&src=pm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jgrooms is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 3rd, 2017, 11:59 AM   #82

motorbike's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Australia
Posts: 699
Blog Entries: 2

I read the german foreign office communiques regarding the German Russian pact on the Avalon Project.
Avalon Project - Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941
Surreal stuff. What I got out of it was:

1. The Germans were initially stunned that the Russians wanted to talk with them.
At the time the Engish and French were actively negotiating to draw the Soviets into an anti-german coalition to respond to Hitler's threats on Poland.

2. A lot of time was spent determining the bona fides of each side for these talks.

3. Both parties came to understand that they were talking to benefit themselves.
The Soviets to avoid being drawn into a war with Germany that would benefit the West; Hitler to avoid a "war on two fronts" while he invaded Poland and then if necessary, deal with the West.

4. Both parties understood that these talks did not imply that they accepted the other's ideology or would change their actions towards each other.

5. The agreement reached was merely a device to handle a contemporary situation regardless of the content of the agreement - both understood that they and other would break it when convenient.

The cost to Hitler was the secret protocol of dividing Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence - that is to go against his life-long desire to expand eastward. Hitler rationalised this as a strategic necessity to deal with the threats of the present. It also left several ethnic german groups on the wrong side of the line and Hitler had to hastily get them out (they were moved to lands annexed from Poland - a sort of "reverse lebensraum") as they would be "persona non grata" after the Soviets completed the takeover of their agreed territories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsgau_Wartheland
motorbike is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 12:41 PM   #83

Res Ipsa Loquitur's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Belfast
Posts: 293

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fairfax View Post
No Barbarossa = no D-Day
Interesting. If there was no Munich Peace Agreement, Hitler's generals would've ganged up on him and thrown him out. (Hitler is reputed to have said of Chamberlain, "he seemed such a nice old man, I thought I'd give him my autograph as a souvenir"). No more Nazi Germany. And that would leave the Stalin as a bigger threat to Western Europe than Hitler ever was.
Res Ipsa Loquitur is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 01:04 PM   #84

arkteia's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Seattle
Posts: 4,232

Quote:
Originally Posted by Res Ipsa Loquitur View Post
Interesting. If there was no Munich Peace Agreement, Hitler's generals would've ganged up on him and thrown him out. (Hitler is reputed to have said of Chamberlain, "he seemed such a nice old man, I thought I'd give him my autograph as a souvenir"). No more Nazi Germany. And that would leave the Stalin as a bigger threat to Western Europe than Hitler ever was.
Assumption. Threat, maybe. But it took war to establish communist regimes in Eastern Europe. And it took Molotov-Ribbentrop plan for the USSR to even advance into Poland. And you think that without Hitler, the same states, Britain, France, and the US, would have not helped Europe if Stalin attacked?
arkteia is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 01:05 PM   #85

arkteia's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Seattle
Posts: 4,232

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maribat View Post
Had he plans to invade it in 1941?
Not to my knowledge. I think he was very aware of German power. Nothing that I ever read about Stalin after the beginning of war, no phrase, nothing like "he beat us to it". The only well-known phrase is "Lenin has left us a great state, and we, shi.heads, lost it". (Can't translate in a better way, but you know what he said). It does not indicate intent to attack Germany to which Hitler beat him. It indicates remorse that some things were done wrong. I once read Suvorov's book, did not subscribe to his idea because no one else ever said anything similar. And never reread the book.

Last edited by arkteia; February 3rd, 2017 at 01:21 PM.
arkteia is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 06:43 PM   #86

arkteia's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Seattle
Posts: 4,232

[QUOTE=rvsakhadeo;2691730]
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkteia View Post
Stalin had no plans to invade Germany in 1942, after all, the Finnish war was a fiasco which showed him how poorly prepared the Soviet army was. However the conflict between the two, Stalin and Hitler, was inevitable. Europe was too small for both of them.

However, someone (Poskryobyshev?) remembered later that in the beginning of 1941, Stalin was afraid of German attack, maybe in denial of the inevitable. He and Zhdanov would lock themselves up in Stalin's cabinet and read "Art of war" and similar books.

The Barbarossa in 1941 was not prompted by anti-Semitic, nor anti-Bolshevik agenda, like someone has said above. Ploeshti oil resources were not able to fulfill the demands of German war machine. The Germans needed the oil of Baku.[/QUOTE )
Objective / s of Operation Barbarossa were not clear at all.
Hitler wanted a Lebensraum for the German folk. But that was when he wrote ' Mein Kampf ' in prison. He justified opening the unnecessary second front by saying that it was necessary to deprive the British of their hopes of USSR coming to their aid. It was much later , in 1942 autumn, at the time of Operation Blue that he said it was important to capture the areas bearing oil and coal and grain rather than the capital Moscow. Till that time, he had not bothered about the importance of oil. So basically Barbarossa was a leap into dark. Holding a line from Archangel to Astrakhan was a wild dream and devoid of strategic aims.
You know, just my feeling. If there is high unemployment rate in the country, 15%, and you come to power by promising to reduce it to zero, and then you do reduce it, to a degree, by tight control, but what you can do is limited...war is the next step. I am not sure Hitler started the war prompted by ideology. I think war is the inevitable solution when you realize you can not deliver on your economic promises.

Unemployment in Nazi Germany

Just interesting numbers, and measures that he took.

Last edited by arkteia; February 3rd, 2017 at 06:46 PM.
arkteia is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 07:04 PM   #87
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,432

the auricle does not mention other things.

Hitler also conscripted a almost million men into the armed forces, thats a large effort on the unemployed right there.

The Massive military build up was also the Germany Government spending at a vast right.

There were also things like the 'work shy' being sent to concentration camps,or forced labour on the auto bans or whatever.
pugsville is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 10:33 PM   #88

arkteia's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Seattle
Posts: 4,232

Right, defense industry and the army produce jobs and employ people. But it is a pyramid of a certain sort.

Invading Western Europe would not help because in the big scheme of events, Hitler did not plan to destroy peoples he considered ethnically close. Now if you conquer the other part of Europe, with "untermenschen", and destroy 80% of them, you do provide jobs to the Germans who resettle there, for centuries to come. Only it never works in such a simplistic way, does it?
arkteia is offline  
Old February 4th, 2017, 03:45 AM   #89

sparky's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Sydney
Posts: 2,081
Blog Entries: 1

.
One of the consequence of the rearmament policy , the extravaganza of the Olympiad and the large program of infrastructure building such as the Auto-banns was that Germany was broke ,

it was either go to war or cut down public spending
sparky is offline  
Old February 4th, 2017, 04:10 AM   #90

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,469

Quote:
Originally Posted by arkteia View Post
Not to my knowledge. I think he was very aware of German power. Nothing that I ever read about Stalin after the beginning of war, no phrase, nothing like "he beat us to it". The only well-known phrase is "Lenin has left us a great state, and we, shi.heads, lost it". (Can't translate in a better way, but you know what he said). It does not indicate intent to attack Germany to which Hitler beat him. It indicates remorse that some things were done wrong. I once read Suvorov's book, did not subscribe to his idea because no one else ever said anything similar. And never reread the book.
As I have stated in another thread, I just happened to read ' The 900 Days The Siege of Leningrad ' by Harrison Salisbury today afternoon and here is a passage from that book, quoting General Halder's diary entry soon after the start of Operation Barbarossa. :-
" The offensive of our forces caught the enemy with full tactical surprise. Evidence of the complete unexpectedness for the enemy our attack is the fact that units were captured quite unawares in their barracks, aircraft stood on the airdromes secured by tarpaulins, and forward units, attacked by our troops, asked their command what they should do. "
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
attack, barbarossa, invasion, operation, preemptive, unexpected



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soviet Invasion of Germany instead of Operation Barbarossa SSDD Speculative History 2 September 19th, 2015 04:23 PM
Operation Barbarossa JohnBeechinor Speculative History 30 January 12th, 2014 02:48 AM
operation barbarossa? generalfeldmarschall wood War and Military History 7 June 8th, 2013 04:02 AM
Operation Barbarossa Sappho History Help 5 January 10th, 2013 09:08 PM
Operation Barbarossa panzerbjorn War and Military History 34 December 5th, 2009 01:50 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.