The spark that started the war ?

marcsignal

Great Thread Morlar

I haven't had time to take the arguments and points raised in detail, but I would just like to throw in my twopence worth.

@42 now, I've been interesated in WW2 all my life. My interest waned, kind of, for a period in my mid to late teens. However I became more interested in the whole subject again after the fall of the former Soviet Union, because so much new information started coming out. This new perspective compelled me to start questioning much of the 'version' of the war I had believed to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth up to that point.

Looking back I can see now, how much the Russian contribution to WW2 was downplayed, and in some cases, bearly mentioned at all, in history books, documentaries, and movies. This was largely due to the fact of the Cold War relationship between the US the UK and The Soviet Union.

I believe I can also understand now, why 'revisionism' is such a dirty word in the west, and is lumped into the same catagory as Holocaust denial, because it stifles and hampers, the sniffing around that might unearth facts embarrassing to the West.

I have completely stopped examining WW2 from an emotional perspective, as a result, and examine everything now with a more pragmatic outlook, and try to remain cognisant of the importance of empathy.

Wars are shit, people die, victors take the spoils, and write the history, and for this reason I fully welcome any alternative view coming from Russian sources. They did, after all, suffer more than any other Nation or Race, during WW2, and up to very recently have not had the chance, or freedom to say their piece. In my opinion, their viewpoint should be logged and given credible consideration, especially evidence from witnesses, before they are conveniently all dead, and the issues fall into the area of 'hearsay' or 'anecdotal evidence'

They may continue to ruffle a few feathers in the west yet, with regard to ALL of the aspects and events of WW2, and in my opinion, the best is yet to come, because the Russian approach is largely uncontaminated by the type of Political Correctness we have in the west, which makes certain aspects of the war 'taboo' and beyond scrutiny, for people like you and me.

Tony EH

there are many many assumptions in your post Tony.

Mmmm...I'm not assuming anything in that particular post Fred. They are the events as they panned out during 1938 and 1939.

Tell us, how would you see the political landscape of europe today if Britain and France hadn't made the treaties they did with Poland?

If things had panned out the way you say, we would either have a Nazi government controlling everything from Germany eastwards, a Fascist government controlling Italy, Greece, Albania and northern Africa and a Fascist dictator in Spain.

It’s impossible to know, for sure, how the political landscape of Europe would have panned out in the event of a minimised war in Europe. However, I would be of the firm belief that the Soviet Union would still have beaten Germany eventually, perhaps in a more prolonged struggle. But many countries are untouched by the war. Either way, Eastern Europe STILL ends up under Soviet domination for much of the 20th Century. So, there’s not much change there and Fascist Italy probably still carries on until Mussolini’s death, much in the same way as Franco’s Spain did. But there would be no moves by Mussolini into the Mediterranean, without Germany’s victories in France. El Duce only saw the benefit in that move after the French (and BEF) defeat and during the Battle of Britain. He simply wouldn’t have dared move without those actions first. Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia and Albania before WWII, was more about “getting into Africa” (at least that part) before somebody else did, rather than Empire and besides, Italy certainly cannot be condemned alone for colonial moves into Africa. Either way, the Abyssinian move met with such vigorous (not to mention extremely hypocritical) condemnation from other European nations that many in Italy’s government were loath to repeat the exercise. In any event, before the German conquest of France, Italy’s ambitions abroad were more about consolidating pre-existing colonial plans rather than engaging in a sweep of the Mediterranean.

I wonder how a Nazi Europe would have gotten on trading with the arabs for oil, or would they have just marched in and taken it??

What, like America, you mean?

There is also the small matter of the Japanese controlling all of the far east.

The Japanese would still be defeated, in much the same way as actually happened. In fact, without being involved in the war in Europe, The British and Americans have far more resources at their disposal to deal with the Japanese. There is quite possibly a swifter conclusion in that theatre. Either way. there is no conceivable Japanese victory in any scenario.

Damn those British and their war mongering ways.

Damn all Countries and their war mongering ways.

Fratton Fred

There are several assumptions in your theory. the first is that hitler would have been happy jsy conquering everything east of the ruhr and wouldhave had no interest in heading west.

You also assume that italy, despite all the talk by Mussolini, would not have invaded greece or Albania.

Then, lastly, you also presume that Russia would have won. I'm not so convinced about that. If Germany had attacked earlier, which they would have without the battle of Britain then they would have been far more likely to have succeeded. The russians were very close to collapse before winter kicked in, so with a stronger German army and a stronger Luftwaffe, an extra few months of summer and without the supplies reaching Russia via the Arctic convoys it could very easily have been a different story.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are several assumptions in your theory. the first is that hitler would have been happy jsy conquering everything east of the ruhr and wouldhave had no interest in heading west.

What is the evidence to the contrary ?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You also assume that italy, despite all the talk by Mussolini, would not have invaded greece or Albania.

I would have very little doubt about Mussolini's pure opportunism.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Then, lastly, you also presume that Russia would have won. I'm not so convinced about that. If Germany had attacked earlier, which they would have without the battle of Britain then they would have been far more likely to have succeeded. The russians were very close to collapse before winter kicked in, so with a stronger German army and a stronger Luftwaffe, an extra few months of summer and without the supplies reaching Russia via the Arctic convoys it could very easily have been a different story.

I would generally agree with that take on things. Assuming britain, france, USA etc all stayed out of it then the russian armies would have not have lasted long against the wehrmacht fighting on a single front for a single cause. The germans would have had widespread support in places like lithuania/latvia by the suppressed christians/catholics there. It is concievable that many Poles would also have joined the fight against bolshevism too. What would have happened after bolshevism fell is another matter. I would say one likely outcome is a huge swathe of land would have been 'germanised' - russians either downgraded to 2nd class citizens & kept for labour or simply forced east and a new border drawn. The russians themselves are unlikely to have been germanised in the way many Poles (in at least one Gau) were. Due to the scale of russia a full indefinite german occupation would always have been problematic.

Fratton Fred

The only evidence there is, is what actually happened tbh, it is all supposition.

I find it hard to believe that a victorious Adolf hitler would not have turned his attention, at some point, to the country which to many Germans opitimised the humiliation of Versaille more than any other. The country that not only insisted on the hardest elements of the treaty, but also still occupied an area with a mainly German population. Germany goes inot France, it is goodnight Belgium and Holland.

If, as tony says, Britain is dragged off to the far east fighting Japan, is that not not opportunity enough for Mussolini to invade greece etc?

Of course Poland was the spark that started the war, but I believe war was inevitable anyway.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The only evidence there is, is what actually happened tbh, it is all supposition.

I suppose that works both ways. There is no evidence to the contrary either, only information which we can all use to form the basis for a slightly more informed, historically neutral opinion.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that a victorious Adolf hitler would not have turned his attention, at some point, to the country which to many Germans opitimised the humiliation of Versaille more than any other. The country that not only insisted on the hardest elements of the treaty, but also still occupied an area with a mainly German population. Germany goes inot France, it is goodnight Belgium and Holland.

There is a difference between taking back territory and invading and occupying a country the size of France. I am not convinced Germany would have invaded and occuppied France. Throughout the rise to power and while in power Hitler regularly railed against Versailles which (rightly in my view) he held to be extremely unfair on Germany. He did not talk of punishing the british or french for it as much as he did about redressing the inequities of that treaty. Belgium and Holland were not even factors without an all out Franco-German war which france indirectly precipitated by it's treaty with britain to give an assurance to Poland.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If, as tony says, Britain is dragged off to the far east fighting Japan, is that not not opportunity enough for Mussolini to invade greece etc?

Mussolini & Hitler did not get along until such point as Mussolini needed Hitler and Hitler needed Mussolini. Without a wider european war they would not have needed each other and therefore Mussolini on his own would not have gone very far. If he did the likelihood of Mussolini's Italy being successful or holding onto new territory is slim in my view.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Of course Poland was the spark that started the war, but I believe war was inevitable anyway.

A war may have been inevitable - that does not mean it would have been as widespread and damaging to europe. It would have been more limited and more damaging to communism than to europe in my view. You mentioned earlier the Buchannan book - to be honest I have not read that but it is on my shopping list going by some of the reviews I have seen. This is an interesting area and not very often written about due to the various sacred cows related to the subject (primarily on what sort of a human being churchill was). From an Irish perspective churchill is not so much of a sacred cow and that book (like Irivings one) looks like it could be worth checking out.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are several assumptions in your theory. the first is that hitler would have been happy jsy conquering everything east of the ruhr and wouldhave had no interest in heading west.

No "assumption" there at all Fred, that's incontrovertible fact I'm afraid. Hitler, "the man", was very much a product of the tragedy of WWI. The absolutely last thing Hitler wanted was a repeat of the First World War, as he knew that it would simply end in disaster for Germany again. In additition, Hitler wanted nothing from Britain. Not a single thing, except perhaps an alliance against Russia. From France, he wanted nothing either. Although Hitler believed (probably correctly) that France would always side against Germany in any situation. But conflict with France would mean conflict with Britain, so that was to be avoided. Likewise, Hitler never expressed anything about any other Western Country until war broke out. His eyes were always firmly fixed towards what he believed to be Europe's "natural enemy", Russia. That country was the be all/end all of Hitler's war. The campaign in the West was an unwanted distracton.

You also assume that italy, despite all the talk by Mussolini, would not have invaded greece or Albania.

I didn't say anything about Mussolini not invading Albania, in fact I've said the opposite. I do see him moving into the African countries he did in fact move into in the 30's. But that's neither here no there. Mussolini was simply consolidating pre-existing Italian interests in those areas and nobody was going to go to war with him over that. But, without the conquest of France, Mussolini would never have contemplated a move into the Mediterranean. Not in a million years. It was Hitler's blunting of France and Britain that opened up the door for Mussolini's aspirations in those areas. A move, by the way, that absolutely astounded Hitler. There's no assumptions there either. the pre-cursor for those actions was the fact that France had been severely weakened and Britain was busy with Germany in Europe. To Musolini, that left North Africa (and subsequently the med) open for business. With a strong France and Britain, he just wouldn't have dared.

Then, lastly, you also presume that Russia would have won. I'm not so convinced about that. If Germany had attacked earlier, which they would have without the battle of Britain then they would have been far more likely to have succeeded. The russians were very close to collapse before winter kicked in, so with a stronger German army and a stronger Luftwaffe, an extra few months of summer and without the supplies reaching Russia via the Arctic convoys it could very easily have been a different story.

Now, here's where you are "assuming" things. All of the above are simply myths, that are unproven by the facts of the matter.

Firstly. At no point in the war was Russia "close to collapse". Sure, the endured some incredible hardships (the most of any nation in the war), but they were never at a point of no return. Even after the great German advances of 1941 and 1942. Once Russia had moved her industrial base east, out of the range of Luftwaffe bombers she could take comfort in the fact that she could always out produce Germany in tanks and aircraft. Also, her man power resources absolutely dwarfed Germany's. So, Russia fell back on her old strategy...they would give up territory and buy time. Which is exactly what they did and that's exactly what they would have done if Germany had attacked in 1940. Even if the German's could draw upon the resources that they were forced to waste in Western Europe and North Africa, it still would only have been a mere fraction of what they would have actually needed in order to beat Russia.

Secondly. Even if Germany had attacked in 1940 (which was something that Germany was unprepared to do BTW and simply would not have happened), the Russians would still have been able to absorb the losses and eventually push the Germans back. Hitler hadn't envisaged a war with Russia until at least 1942. The Germans wouldn't have been any stronger in 1940, than they were in 1941.

Thirdly. The "General Winter" idea is pure myth. Winter favors no army and while the Wehrmacht may have suffered proportionately higher than the Russians in the winter of 1941, The Red Army had troubles of its own dealing with -40 degree temperatures. the Russian winter ground both armies to a virtual halt. But the main factor that blunted the German advance in 1941 was the fact that they out stretched their supply lines and that would have happened regardless of weather. The Gerries simply advanced too quickly.

And fourthly, you're assuming that "lend lease" made a real difference in the early years. It didn't. Not in 1941, not in 1942 and not in 1943. Lend lease's biggest impact was in Bagration in 1944 and that was because the Red Army utilised the superb trucks that the U.S. had sent them, but the war was over to all intents and purposes then. The battles of 1941 and 1942 were won (and lost) with Russian equipment and Russian blood. Lend Lease constituted less than 15% of the total equipment used by the Russians in WWII and the vast majority of the war material was second line equipment. In addition, the Soviet production of their own material was immense, once the factories had been moved east. The Uralmash factory complex alone produced 23,000 T-34's! Germany couldn't hope to come remotely close to that figure. In any case, the most important items the Russians received from Lend Lease in the early years was telephone wire and in the later years, those Dodge's I mentioned earlier. But neither was a war winning transformation.

ejmaztec

I think that Admiral Canaris, the anti-Hitler head of German intelligence, can be assigned some of the blame for the war not being restricted to the east. He was involved in several attempts to get rid of Hitler, a couple of these taking place even before the war started. It suited his aims, and those of other anti-Nazis, to get Britain involved in sweeping Hitler under the carpet.

In January 1939 he stirred things up in the British camp by leaking information that Holland would be invaded the following February. Dutch airfields were going to be used to launch destructive bombing raids on England.

If Britain wasn't particularly interested in Hitler's European plans before this "leak", they certainly were afterwards. If you study the British cabinet papers for the time, a war seemed certain, with France being the first recipient of British troops. It's interesting to read the details of how much the deployment was going to cost, and the amount of money the British government was going to have to borrow to carry it out. I think that the financial undertones were not those of a country awash with cash, but those of a country reluctantly giving in to the inevitable.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/defence-policy-1933-1939.htm#Army%20plans

I think that the Polish guarantee simply brought the war forward.

Fratton Fred

Tony EH wrote: »

No "assumption" there at all Fred, that's incontrovertible fact I'm afraid. Hitler, "the man", was very much a product of the tragedy of WWI. The absolutely last thing Hitler wanted was a repeat of the First World War, as he knew that it would simply end in disaster for Germany again. In additition, Hitler wanted nothing from Britain. Not a single thing, except perhaps an alliance against Russia. From France, he wanted nothing either. Although Hitler believed (probably correctly) that France would always side against Germany in any situation. But conflict with France would mean conflict with Britain, so that was to be avoided. Likewise, Hitler never expressed anything about any other Western Country until war broke out. His eyes were always firmly fixed towards what he believed to be Europe's "natural enemy", Russia. That country was the be all/end all of Hitler's war. The campaign in the West was an unwanted distracton.

by rights, France should have gone to war with Germany over the Sudatenland. There was a Franco-Czech alliance in place. That did not appear to bother Hitler. Nor did it bother him that despite signing and agreement with Britain and France that he would not go to war with them, he still ignored the Munich agreement and the Anglo/French alliance with Poland.

Hitler was only interested in the Sudatenland, yet he somehow managed to invade all of Czecheslovakia, I am pretty sure the Polish negotiators had that firmly in their minds when discussing Danzig with the Germans.

I may be a bit of a traditionalist, but the reason for WWII was Hitler invading countries willy nilly. Hitler was the bad guy in all this, not some poor unfortunate soul misrepresented by history.

Tony EH

Perhaps. As I said earlier, it was during the Czech situation that major threat of military action should have been issued. However, Britain's political focus was extremely muddled and France had her own internal turmoil to deal with. France only really had what was considered a "caretaker" government after the collapse of the Popular Front. Like Germany, there were running battles on the streets between Communists and members of Rightist organisations. In fact this was true of a number of European countries in the 30's. Daladier later banned the French Communist Party. Beside's Daladier's government didn't really give a hoot about the Czechs. Their "obligation" to "defend" them was simply a method of containing Germany and a poorly thought out one at that.

However, the major sticking point for mobilisation against Germany at the time was not Britain, or France. It was Poland. The Poles refused to allow Russian troops transit rights across her territory and into Germany and that was key to any move against Germany. The idea being of course that Russia attack from the East and Britain and France attack from the West. The Poles feared, not without considerable merit, that once the Russians set foot on Polish territory, they wouldn't actually leave. But without Russia, Britain and France were unprepared to move.

The Polish reaction and her seizing of Czech territory had a large effect on the French attitude to the Poles, with some saying they should simply abandon the agreements they had with them. In fact, Daladier's government nearly didn't join Britain in declaring war in September 1939 and debated vigorously about it for some time after the British declaration. However, the French knew that any war between the British and the Germans would probably end up on French soil anyway and resolved themselves to believing, like Chamberlain, that the combined strength of Anglo-French might would force Hitler to reconsider his actions.

Unfortunately, when one digs a little deeper into history, they find that traditionalist views are usually bunkum and deliberately simplified to present a particular point of view. Hitler may be "the bad guy", but the responsibility for the outbreak of the second World War does not rest on his shoulders alone. War was precipitated by a great many factors.

Fratton Fred

Tony EH wrote: »

Unfortunately, when one digs a little deeper into history, they find that traditionalist views are usually bunkum and deliberately simplified to present a particular point of view. Hitler may be "the bad guy", but the responsibility for the outbreak of the second World War does not rest on his shoulders alone. War was precipitated by a great many factors.

On that, we agree.

Hookey

Tony EH wrote: »

Firstly. At no point in the war was Russia "close to collapse". Sure, the endured some incredible hardships (the most of any nation in the war), but they were never at a point of no return. Even after the great German advances of 1941 and 1942. Once Russia had moved her industrial base east, out of the range of Luftwaffe bombers she could take comfort in the fact that she could always out produce Germany in tanks and aircraft. Also, her man power resources absolutely dwarfed Germany's. So, Russia fell back on her old strategy...they would give up territory and buy time. Which is exactly what they did and that's exactly what they would have done if Germany had attacked in 1940. Even if the German's could draw upon the resources that they were forced to waste in Western Europe and North Africa, it still would only have been a mere fraction of what they would have actually needed in order to beat Russia.

This fails to consider the effect on German output of sustained allied bombing and assumes the Germans would simply have gained the benefit of "freeing up" assets in the West. If Germany was at peace in the West there's every chance they would have had access to western markets, and access to oil in particular. Whilst you're correct there was always a manpower gap between Germany and the Soviets, there was also a massive difference in casualty ratios, particularly before Stalingrad (which, by the way probably wouldn't have happened if Western oil was available). As for whether Russia was close to collapse, on paper no, but you're failing to consider human factors, and Stalin's position in particular if Moscow had fallen (not to mention Moscow's strategic importance as the railway hub in western Russia).

Tony EH wrote: »

Secondly. Even if Germany had attacked in 1940 (which was something that Germany was unprepared to do BTW and simply would not have happened), the Russians would still have been able to absorb the losses and eventually push the Germans back. Hitler hadn't envisaged a war with Russia until at least 1942. The Germans wouldn't have been any stronger in 1940, than they were in 1941.

Germany never had intention of attacking in 1940, so the point is moot, but if they had gotten underway in March or April '41 instead of June, they would have had a dramatically increased chance of achieving their objectives.

Tony EH wrote: »

Thirdly. The "General Winter" idea is pure myth. Winter favors no army and while the Wehrmacht may have suffered proportionately higher than the Russians in the winter of 1941, The Red Army had troubles of its own dealing with -40 degree temperatures. the Russian winter ground both armies to a virtual halt. But the main factor that blunted the German advance in 1941 was the fact that they out stretched their supply lines and that would have happened regardless of weather. The Gerries simply advanced too quickly.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense, "General Winter" can and did favour the Soviets. The Germans were unprepared for winter (because they started late, see above), whilst an impasse in winter favoured the defenders, allowing them to resupply and move trained troops from the east - you said yourself, the Soviets traded time and space, winter let them do this far more effectively than if they'd have been withdrawing production east in good weather.

Tony EH wrote: »

And fourthly, you're assuming that "lend lease" made a real difference in the early years. It didn't. Not in 1941, not in 1942 and not in 1943. Lend lease's biggest impact was in Bagration in 1944 and that was because the Red Army utilised the superb trucks that the U.S. had sent them, but the war was over to all intents and purposes then. The battles of 1941 and 1942 were won (and lost) with Russian equipment and Russian blood. Lend Lease constituted less than 15% of the total equipment used by the Russians in WWII and the vast majority of the war material was second line equipment. In addition, the Soviet production of their own material was immense, once the factories had been moved east. The Uralmash factory complex alone produced 23,000 T-34's! Germany couldn't hope to come remotely close to that figure. In any case, the most important items the Russians received from Lend Lease in the early years was telephone wire and in the later years, those Dodge's I mentioned earlier. But neither was a war winning transformation.

Once again you're making the assumption of "all other things being equal". Lend lease was indeed less important to the Soviets than the British, but it doesn't mean it was irrelevant, and if you lose that 15%, whilst at the same time the Germans gain production benefits by having open trading links in their rear, the percentage shift gets even more perilous for the Soviets.

Getting back to the original article, it seems somewhat specious of a Russian officer to criticize Poland when his country was quite happy to share the spoils with Germany. If he wants to look to the true cause of his country's woes in WWII, he should look to Stalin, who refused to believe repeated intelligence that the Germans were about to attack.

As for whether an "Eastern war" would have been a better thing for Europe; in the short-term, of course, but in the long run, absolutely not. You'd either have a Nazi-dominated east with even more thorough genocides than the one we had, and undoubtedly a shift to the right amongst the other Western European nations (everyone loves a winner, and the French and Brits already had more than a few Hitler-fans in their higher echelons), a continued British and French empire (maybe not by now, the economics of overseas empires suck in the long run) but de-colonisation would have undoubtedly been slower and even more bloody. Or, the Soviets win, trundle all the way up to the Rhine, and a disunited western Europe (no NATO, no Americans) has to deal with a threat that very much is interested in looking west in the interests of world communism (a stated aim).

Tony EH

Hookey wrote: »

This fails to consider the effect on German output of sustained allied bombing and assumes the Germans would simply have gained the benefit of "freeing up" assets in the West. If Germany was at peace in the West there's every chance they would have had access to western markets, and access to oil in particular. Whilst you're correct there was always a manpower gap between Germany and the Soviets, there was also a massive difference in casualty ratios, particularly before Stalingrad (which, by the way probably wouldn't have happened if Western oil was available). As for whether Russia was close to collapse, on paper no, but you're failing to consider human factors, and Stalin's position in particular if Moscow had fallen (not to mention Moscow's strategic importance as the railway hub in western Russia).

The effects of allied bombing on German output was little more than a nuisance for most of the war. Besides, it only really got going in 1943, by which time the Soviets had the Germans on the back foot so to speak. After July 1943, there were no more major victories in the East for the Germans. The effects of bombing only really began to bite in 1944 and only had a very serious effect when Germany’s oil targets were being hit. Without the bombing, the Germans would be able to have a freer hand, no doubt. But it still isn’t enough to defeat Russia.

Access to foreign oil markets would have had a positive effect, but even so, it still wouldn’t have been enough for a German victory in Russia either. Besides, whose to say, foreign nations wouldn’t have put an embargo on oil to Germany, like the Americans did with Japan?

Yes, there was a difference in casualty ratios, but the important factor to remember was that the Russian’s could absorb them. The German’s couldn’t. In the war of attrition, the Russian’s were always going to be the winners, no matter what scenario is conjured up.

In addition, Hitler was always interested in a campaign in the Caucasus. In fact, his original aims for 1941, was not to strike at Moscow (which he had little interest in), but to concentrate on Army Group South’s thrust to cut of Soviet access to natural resources. It was his General’s who convinced him that a move on Moscow was the more prudent idea.

Moscow’s importance has been vastly over rated. Soviet Russia would still have continued even with its collapse, which was simply never going to happen anyway. The German’s simply out ran their supply lines and it made no difference what weather that happened in.

Hookey wrote: »

Germany never had intention of attacking in 1940, so the point is moot, but if they had gotten underway in March or April '41 instead of June, they would have had a dramatically increased chance of achieving their objectives.

I agree absolutely. But I disagree with the old canard of a more successful conclusion if they attacked in April or May. There’s simply no reason to believe that if Hitler launched Barbarossa two months before that the situation would have been that different. Again, the Germans out ran their supply lines. The simply advanced too quickly. Much of the Soviet losses would have been the same as they were, but once their factories had been moved out of the range of the Luftwaffe and as long as there was substantial territory under Soviet control, they was always enough for a counter.

Anyway, Hitler’s original date for Barbarossa was mid May. Only a month before the actual launch date. So, there was no intention there to attack that much earlier. Also, without the western interference, he wouldn’t have attacked Russia in 1941 either.

So, an attack in April / May 1941 in moot too.

Besides, the Germans didn’t have things all their own way in 1941. They endured some substantial losses themselves which seriously blunted their chance of success and those losses would probably still have been pretty much the same. For instance, after a month of fighting the Luftwaffe lost 774 aircraft. That’s roughly 60% of the combat aircraft they started Barbarossa with. The Soviets lost around 7,000. That was about 70% of the frontline aircraft they started out with. So, while the numbers are indeed hugely different. The percentages are not that far apart. The major difference is that the Soviets could (and did) make up the losses far easier than the Germans could and that was without allied strategic bombing.

Hookey wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is nonsense, "General Winter" can and did favour the Soviets. The Germans were unprepared for winter (because they started late, see above), whilst an impasse in winter favoured the defenders, allowing them to resupply and move trained troops from the east - you said yourself, the Soviets traded time and space, winter let them do this far more effectively than if they'd have been withdrawing production east in good weather.

Yes, the Germans were unprepared and not because “they started late”, but simply because it was overlooked and yes suffered proportionately higher, as I already said. They wouldn't have been any more "prepared" if Hitler did launch Barbarossa in May 1941. But it wasn’t the winter that stopped the Wehrmacht advance. It was the inability of the Germans to adequately supply the Army and the severe underestimation of Soviet strength. Logistics and bad planning were the primary reasons that Typhoon failed. Not the weather.

Ping Chow Chi

Tony EH wrote: »

Besides, the Germans didn’t have things all their own way in 1941. They endured some substantial losses themselves which seriously blunted their chance of success and those losses would probably still have been pretty much the same. For instance, after a month of fighting the Luftwaffe lost 774 aircraft. That’s roughly 60% of the combat aircraft they started Barbarossa with. The Soviets lost around 7,000. That was about 70% of the frontline aircraft they started out with. So, while the numbers are indeed hugely different. The percentages are not that far apart. The major difference is that the Soviets could (and did) make up the losses far easier than the Germans could and that was without allied strategic bombing.

They would have had a lot more aircraft to play with if they had not have had a 'battle of britain'. Though I doubt that Hitler and his allies would have won even if they did not have a western front to fight, it is hard to be certain there are too many variables.

Tony EH

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

They would have had a lot more aircraft to play with if they had not have had a 'battle of britain'. Though I doubt that Hitler and his allies would have won even if they did not have a western front to fight, it is hard to be certain there are too many variables.

True, they would have had double the amout they started Barbarossa with on the frontline. However, the Soviets still had about 8,000 aircraft in reserve in the East, if we stick to the same timeline and vastly more, if Hitler launches Barbarossa in 1942, plus they would be of greater quality.

In fact, launching Barabarossa in mid 1942 would have been an absolute disaster for Germany from the get go and I seriously doubt they would have gained as much ground as they did in 1941.

arnhem44

Poland would be the obvious place to start but there was so much more going on that did not involve military action that should be addressed,the failure of the Versallie Treaty and League of nations,the depression of the late twenties,poor political judgements and also shrewd political leaders,lend lease was alot more important for the Americans reasons for entering the war as was oil.Greed,revenge and hatred were also factors,things that were born out of WW1.One queston,why was war not declared on Russia when they invaded Poland on the 16th,two weeks after Germany,Once again I think the answer lies to the west

marcsignal

arnhem44 wrote: »

One queston,why was war not declared on Russia when they invaded Poland on the 16th,two weeks after Germany

i have always wondered about this too

Morlar

marcsignal wrote: »

i have always wondered about this too

Equally shameful is the fact that the allies tolerated communist atrocities against the Poles such as Katyn. Even though the Polish government in exile asked akward questions of the communists they recieved little assistance from either the british or american govt/s in this.

This might interest some here, it is the Stalin Telegram to the Polish govt in exile where he broke official relations claiming they were hitlerite stooges on the basis of their Katyn questions. The cynical hypocrisy of this is staggering considering we now know Stalin/Beria directly ordered the massacres and had full knowledge.

April 21, 1943

The recent conduct of the Polish Government towards the Soviet Union is regarded by the Soviet Government as absolutely abnormal and contrary to all rules and standards governing relations between allied countries.
The campaign of calumny against the Soviet Union, initiated by the German fascists regarding the Polish officers they themselves slaughtered in the Smolensk area, on German-occupied territory, was immediately taken up by the Sikorski government and inflated in every possible way by the official Polish press. The Sikorski government, far from taking a stand against the vile fascist slander of the Soviet Union, did not even see fit to ask the Soviet government for information or explanations.
The Hitlerite authorities, after perpetrating an atrocious crime against the Polish officers, are now engaged upon an investigation farce for the staging of which they have enlisted the help of certain pro-fascist Polish elements picked up by them in occupied Poland, where everything is under Hitler's heel and where honest Poles dare not lift their voices in public.
The governments of Sikorski and Hitler have involved in these "investigations" the International Red Cross which is compelled to take part under conditions of a terroristic regime with its gallows and mass extermination of a peaceful population, in this investigation farce, under the stage management of Hitler. It should be clear that such "investigations," carried out, moreover, behind the Soviet Government's back, cannot inspire confidence in persons of any integrity.
The fact that this campaign against the Soviet Union was launched simultaneously in the German and Polish press, and is being conducted along similar lines, does not leave any room for doubt that there is contact and collusion between Hitler, the enemy of the Allies, and the Sikorski government in the conduct of the campaign.
At a time when the people of the Soviet Union are shedding their blood in the bitter struggle against Hitlerite Germany and straining every effort to rout the common foe of all liberty-loving democratic countries, the government of Mr. Sikorski, pandering to Hitler's tyranny, is dealing a treacherous blow to the Soviet Union.
All these circumstances force the Soviet Government to infer that the present government of Poland, having fallen into the path of collusion with the Hitler government, has actually discontinued relations of alliance with the USSR and assumed a hostile attitude toward the Soviet Union.
In view of these circumstances the Soviet Government has come to the conclusion of the necessity for breaking relations with the present Polish government.
I deem it necessary to inform you of the above and trust that the Government of the United States will realize the inevitability of the step which the Soviet Government has been compelled to take.
END OF STALIN MESSAGE

Tony EH

marcsignal wrote: »

i have always wondered about this too

Because, after shooting their mouths of about a "guarantee" and upping the ante to unexpected results (Germany invading Poland), they quite rightly assumed that declaring war on the Soviets too would be an absolute disaster and could only end in a very bad way.

So they quietly neglected to declare war on Russia.

The guarantee was bogus anyway, so why make matters worse than they already had?

Fratton Fred

Tony EH wrote: »

Because, after shooting their mouths of about a "guarantee" and upping the ante to unexpected results (Germany invading Poland), they quite rightly assumed that declaring war on the Soviets too would be an absolute disaster and could only end in a very bad way.

So they quietly neglected to declare war on Russia.

The guarantee was bogus anyway, so why make matters worse than they already had?

I think the gaurantee was quite specific in it's wording and did only mention Germany.

How was it bogus? Britain, France and Australia all declared war on Germany. it sounds pretty un-bogus to me.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How was it bogus?

Because there was no intention of helping Poland.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain, France and Australia all declared war on Germany.

On the basis that they (Germany) invaded Poland.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it sounds pretty un-bogus to me.

Which the soviet union had also done.
__

Are you honestly saying you see no double standard or hypocrisy in this ?

How about the soviet union invading Finland ?

Was that not also a neutral country invaded by a belligerent agressor ?

The question would be why was it acceptable to britain and France for their ally to behave in an identical manner as Germany yet it was Germany they declared war upon ?

ejmaztec

What an interesting turn of events, were Britain and France to declare war on Russia and Germany at the same time, a bit like a blindfolded lunatic wandering up the middle of a mainline railway track in the dark.

Fratton Fred

Tony EH wrote: »

Because there was no intention of helping Poland.

There was every intention of helping Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany. It may have escaped your attention, but there was a bloody great big war over the next 6 years because of it. In 1939, no one could have seen how big and disasterous WWi was going to be.

Morlar wrote: »

On the basis that they (Germany) invaded Poland.



Which the soviet union had also done.
__

Are you honestly saying you see no double standard or hypocrisy in this ?

How about the soviet union invading Finland ?

Was that not also a neutral country invaded by a belligerent agressor ?

The question would be why was it acceptable to britain and France for their ally to behave in an identical manner as Germany yet it was Germany they declared war upon ?

There was no alliance between Russia and Britain at the time, which is why both Britain and France offered to send troops to the Fins.

Tony EH

There was every intention of helping Poland...It may have escaped your attention, but there was a bloody great big war over the next 6 years because of it.

In which absolutely NOTHING was done to aid Poland whatsoever.

Even at the end of "...6 years" of war, Poland was sold down the river into Communist domination for decades.

Not only was there no intention of helping Poland, there was no conceivable way to help Poland.

The "guarantee" was a bluff and one that backfired incredibly.

Tony EH

There was no alliance between Russia and Britain at the time, which is why both Britain and France offered to send troops to the Fins.

Any plan for neutralising a Germany relied on Russian help. But Hitler, himself, neutralised that potential by signing the non-aggression pact in August 1939 and thus scuppered any chances of a three way, that Britain and France were hoping for. They really didn't see that one coming and it completely threw any hope that the April "guarantee" would have any real positive effect.

Regarding "aid to the Finns", the British set up a plan to advance toward the Gallivare iron ore fields and thus shut off the German options there. This was central to British planning in the early phase of 1940. Ostensibly, the BEF were going to pass through Sweden on their way to supposedly help Finland in their war with Russia. On their way the Gallivare iron ore shipments would be neutralised. Only then would a detachment be sent on to Finland. However, Sweden refused them the right of passage, probably fearing a Soviet backlash.

"Aid to the Finns" was nothing of the sort. British concern over tons of Swedish ore shipments to Germany was of primary (and probably only) concern.

Fratton Fred

Tony EH wrote: »

In which absolutely NOTHING was done to aid Poland whatsoever.

Even at the end of "...6 years" of war, Poland was sold down the river into Communist domination for decades.

Not only was there no intention of helping Poland, there was no conceivable way to help Poland.

The "guarantee" was a bluff and one that backfired incredibly.

No, the guarantee was a bluff made before anyone understood what it actually meant. Hitler called the bluff, the Allies declared war.

You are judging the actions of the day based purely on hindsight. no one in 1939 knew of the Ribbentrop/molotov pact, or that Russia would invade Finland or that Stalin would go and massacre 20,000 Polish officers.

Let me ask you a question, if the US decided it wanted to invade Ireland, would you expect the UK to defend it? would you expect the UK to offer Ireland an alliance to help dissuade the US from invading, or would you think it reasonable fo the UK to sit back because the US is a far bigger military power?

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, the guarantee was a bluff made before anyone understood what it actually meant. Hitler called the bluff, the Allies declared war.

You are judging the actions of the day based purely on hindsight. no one in 1939 knew of the Ribbentrop/molotov pact, or that Russia would invade Finland or that Stalin would go and massacre 20,000 Polish officers.

Let me ask you a question, if the US decided it wanted to invade Ireland, would you expect the UK to defend it? would you expect the UK to offer Ireland an alliance to help dissuade the US from invading, or would you think it reasonable fo the UK to sit back because the US is a far bigger military power?

Fred, this post is neither here, nor there and the US invasion of Ireland serves no purpose in this discussion.

In any case, Hitler suspected the "guarnatee" was bluff from the very beginning. He believed that the British were just 'saving face'.

And it was a clear bluff, even to those in the British establishment. There was no possible way for Britain to help the Poles. No way at all. Some British Generals called it utter madness.

Chamberlain didn't want war, at least not in the West anyway. Even up to the fiasco of Norway, Chamberlain's primary wish was for Hitler to simply back down and go to the negotiation table.

But, the die had been cast at that stage. It was too late.

Fratton Fred

Tony EH wrote: »

Fred, this post is neither here, nor there and the US invasion of Ireland serves no purpose in this discussion.

In any case, Hitler suspected the "guarnatee" was bluff from the very beginning. He believed that the British were just 'saving face'.

And it was a clear bluff, even to those in the British establishment. There was no possible way for Britain to help the Poles. No way at all. Some British Generals called it utter madness.

Chamberlain didn't want war, at least not in the West anyway. Even up to the fiasco of Norway, Chamberlain's primary wish was for Hitler to simply back down and go to the negotiation table.

But, the die had been cast at that stage. It was too late.

Chamberlain was damned if he did, damned if he didn't tbh. The entire country could see war coming and most saw the Munich agreement as delaying the inevitable. Hitler has already re-armed way beyond what was acceptable and this was why there was a massive call for britain to do the same.

Britain's (and France's) biggest crime in all this was not stepping in earlier and preventing hitler creating the massive war machine that he did.

Yeah, it was madness, but there was no other option. it was the right thing to do, at the time.

Tony EH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Chamberlain was damned if he did, damned if he didn't tbh.

Well, that's not quote correct. Nobody was calling for Chamberlain to offer a guarantee to Poland, if her borders were threatened. Some wanted a strong political stance against Hitler. But, that certainly didn't mean they were looking for a war with Germany. Far from it.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The entire country could see war coming and most saw the Munich agreement as delaying the inevitable. Hitler has already re-armed way beyond what was acceptable and this was why there was a massive call for britain to do the same.

Yes, some believed war was in the air. But they didn't know where. Some called it correctly and could forsee what Hitler was up to regarding his plans for Eastern Europe and were happy enough to sit out a war between Germany and Russia, while adopting an official finger wagging stance. In fact there were some in Britain and France were positively praying for such events. Others felt that a strong Germany at the heart of Europe, would inevitably mean a weakening if British Hedgemony.

The salient point in this discussion, is that the war need never have come to Britain, or indeed Western Europe.

In addition, Germany had not "re-armed way beyond what was acceptable", in fact, they were very far from it. Their panzer arm was made up of largely Panzer I and II's light tanks that were considered training vehicles, even by the germans themselves. Their Luftwaffe, although viewed as the strongest of Hitler forces was considered "...nothing to worry about", by the British contingent that visited Luftwaffe airfields after the unveiling of the new airforce in 1935, they had nothing to challenge the Royal Navy's domination of the sea lanes and the vast majority of their artilery was horse drawn, even in 1942 still!