Soviet Oil sources - WWII

[Simon_Jester]

I assume, Purple, that what you say is not opposed to the fact that the Nazi political agenda basically required the invasion of the USSR, regardless of whether it made sense or not, so long as it was something they could convince themselves was possible?

[Thanas]

It was not a reasonable strategy and German High Command was dead set against it. They knew the soviets were concentrating on a defensive mindset. Attacking Russia made no sense whatsoever, especially not with the lessons of WWI in mind.

Sure the really good strategy would have been an alliance with the Soviet Union (and at least it was somewhat possible in 1940).

No, it would not.

However which lessons would you refer from WWI? The fact that someone is neutral now means nothing about his stance next month (Italy and Romania was neutral at the beginning yet they attacked the Central Powers when they felt it was right)? Or that Russian morale will hold (they collapsed in WWI after smaller losses than in the early phase of the Barbarossa, though it took more time)? Or that two front wars are bad? But then how exactly to avoid a two front war in 1943-44 when the situation of Germany turns darker, what can Germany offer to Stalin for maintaining a peace? In 1940-1941 there was no serious chance for a Soviet attack, since their army was in a bad shape... but time was on their side. Each year they grow stronger and stronger, could this change their mindset? There were pro-offensive circles in the Red Army before the Purges. Could they regrow and convince Stalin to strike?

You do not fight a war on two fronts and you do not start a war with somebody on the unlikely possibility that sometime along the line, they would choose to go on an attack which would most likely fail. You also do not invade a country when you know of the logistic issues from the first war you fought with them.

[bz249]

You do not fight a war on two fronts and you do not start a war with somebody on the unlikely possibility that sometime along the line, they would choose to go on an attack which would most likely fail. You also do not invade a country when you know of the logistic issues from the first war you fought with them.

Why it was all that unlikely that the Soviet Union would attack when they would be prepared? Both pre 1941 and post 1945 policies had shown that they are an agressive power who were happy to expand their sphere of influence (Japan followed a policy of not going to war with the Soviet Union, yet they were attacked).

Also the Western Allies were eager to gain the support of the Soviets before the German offensive. They just could not match the bargain Hitler offered them in the form of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (they prefered the defense of Poland afterall). However those tables would turn later on and Germany is in way weaker negotiating position than the US or Britain. So what exactly would keep Stalin out of the war, when the reorganization and rearmament of the Red Army is, large portion of the Wehrmacht are tied in the West (both in AA and coastal defense role) and Churchill send him a serviette with the future division of Eastern Europe? Why would he decline a Molotov-Eden pact in 1943, what can be the German counteroffer?

@purple
Besieging Britain was not even remotely possible for Germany. The problem with the sub warfare was simple: an anti submarine frigate or corvette is cheaper than a submarine, thus submarine blockade can not work. Germany lacked the naval capacity to carry out an invasion. And it was impossible to win with a WWII level bombing campaign (all it could achieve is to tie down forces, but the UK had more than enough spare manpower and resources). All Germany could do is somehow convince Britain that accepting a draw is a good option.
About the Mediterranean, the most important issue is naval logistics. The UK had an advantage in that, even if the Germans somehow convince Franco for a joint operation against Gibraltar (historically a large part of the British supplies take the long route anyway). And than there is geography: near el-Alamein it is nearly impossible to break through. Monty barely did it with a clear superiority against a depleted German-Italian army. The British could hold this part for infinity, since there is no way to outmaneuver them and they can maintain the required force concentration.

[Thanas]

You do not fight a war on two fronts and you do not start a war with somebody on the unlikely possibility that sometime along the line, they would choose to go on an attack which would most likely fail. You also do not invade a country when you know of the logistic issues from the first war you fought with them.

Why it was all that unlikely that the Soviet Union would attack when they would be prepared? Both pre 1941 and post 1945 policies had shown that they are an agressive power who were happy to expand their sphere of influence (Japan followed a policy of not going to war with the Soviet Union, yet they were attacked).

....what now?

Attacking Finland went pretty bad for them and the Reich is not Finland.

So what exactly would keep Stalin out of the war, when the reorganization and rearmament of the Red Army is, large portion of the Wehrmacht are tied in the West (both in AA and coastal defense role) and Churchill send him a serviette with the future division of Eastern Europe? Why would he decline a Molotov-Eden pact in 1943, what can be the German counteroffer?

What would Stalin gain by attacking Germany, a nation with a higher industrial base, much much better logistics in this context and battle-proven troops?

Omeganian, is that you?

[Skgoa]

bz249, do you not realize that the SU was politically isolated at that time? (And just look at how fast the SU and "the west" were at each other's throats after the war...) Before it became known just how Bad Hitler was, there were quite a number of influential people in the west who heralded him as a bulwark against communism. Hitler didn't object to the invasions of both Finland and the baltic states, the British Empire and the US were a much bigger common threat and National Socialism is radical anti-capitalism strikingly similar to Stalinism, too - so what problem would Stalin have with his only noteworthy ally and trade partner? No, IMO he would at most be happy seeing his potential adversaries fighting each other.
Also, on an ad hominem note: not everything is about maximizing your personal advantage. Dependable long term friendships/alliances can be very very valuable down the road.

[Omeganian]

It was not a reasonable strategy and German High Command was dead set against it. They knew the soviets were concentrating on a defensive mindset.

1) The results and goals of the combat preparation of Land Forces, Air forces, and operative preparation of the higher commanding ranks.

2) The character of modern offensive operation.

3) The Air Forces in an offensive operation and in a fight for air superiority.

4) The character of a modern defensive operation.

5) The use of mechanized units in a modern offensive operation and insertion of a mechanized corps into a breach.

6) The combat of a rifle division in offense and defense.



These are the subjects of the lectures on the December 1940 higher officers conference. Concentration on a defensive mindset?..

[Thanas]

It was not a reasonable strategy and German High Command was dead set against it. They knew the soviets were concentrating on a defensive mindset.

1) The results and goals of the combat preparation of Land Forces, Air forces, and operative preparation of the higher commanding ranks.

2) The character of modern offensive operation.

3) The Air Forces in an offensive operation and in a fight for air superiority.

4) The character of a modern defensive operation.

5) The use of mechanized units in a modern offensive operation and insertion of a mechanized corps into a breach.

6) The combat of a rifle division in offense and defense.



These are the subjects of the lectures on the December 1940 higher officers conference. Concentration on a defensive mindset?..

WTF? That is a bog-standard lecture schedule. How is it in any way supposed to prove anything? Oh noes, conferences discuss all options.

[Omeganian]

It was not a reasonable strategy and German High Command was dead set against it. They knew the soviets were concentrating on a defensive mindset.

1) The results and goals of the combat preparation of Land Forces, Air forces, and operative preparation of the higher commanding ranks.

2) The character of modern offensive operation.

3) The Air Forces in an offensive operation and in a fight for air superiority.

4) The character of a modern defensive operation.

5) The use of mechanized units in a modern offensive operation and insertion of a mechanized corps into a breach.

6) The combat of a rifle division in offense and defense.



These are the subjects of the lectures on the December 1940 higher officers conference. Concentration on a defensive mindset?..

WTF? That is a bog-standard lecture schedule. How is it in any way supposed to prove anything? Oh noes, conferences discuss all options.

Exactly, and the discussions show no defensive mindset. At least, calling the recently conquered Bessarabia a lodgement doesn't sound as such.

[Thanas]

Exactly, and the discussions show no defensive mindset. At least, calling the recently conquered Bessarabia a lodgement doesn't sound as such.

Missed the point. Lecture schedules prove nothing either way. Meanwhile, the focus on defensive fortifications show a defensive mindset.

[bz249]

Before it became known just how Bad Hitler was, there were quite a number of influential people in the west who heralded him as a bulwark against communism. Hitler didn't object to the invasions of both Finland and the baltic states, the British Empire and the US were a much bigger common threat and National Socialism is radical anti-capitalism strikingly similar to Stalinism, too - so what problem would Stalin have with his only noteworthy ally and trade partner? No, IMO he would at most be happy seeing his potential adversaries fighting each other.

Yes making an alliance with the Soviets is a way better option for Germany than fighting them. Fighting against the Soviets in 1941 is nonetheless better than in 1943. In 1941 the Red Army was a disorganized rabble, in the middle of a reorganization. Meanwhile the resources the Wehrmacht could concentrate on the east would decrease as the time goes. So the balance shift in a direction which would favor the Soviets.

bz249, do you not realize that the SU was politically isolated at that time? (And just look at how fast the SU and "the west" were at each other's throats after the war...)

His Majesty's Prime Minister though otherwise, he put fighting against Germany above everything else and was willing to cooperate with the SU in that. Anyway, there were serious Western-Soviet talks in 1939 about political and military agreements. The German offer happened to be better so the SU sided Germany.

Also, on an ad hominem note: not everything is about maximizing your personal advantage. Dependable long term friendships/alliances can be very very valuable down the road.

Are we talking about a paranoid dictator called Stalin? He was happy with maximizing personal advantage and loosing some friends by executing them.

What would Stalin gain by attacking Germany, a nation with a higher industrial base, much much better logistics in this context and battle-proven troops?

Well he could gain material support from the Western Allies (opening the Eastern Front is rather important to them... so they would pay practically any price for that). Joining the winning side is never a bad idea. Also he could expand his Empire.

Anyway its about 1943/44 the strategic bombing campaign is running, Africa was fallen (Germany simply could not avoid it, there is no way the Axis can supply a force strong enough to deal with Anglo-American forces). German troops are diverted to Italy and Norway (the two logical minor invasion target) which might fall by that time (the Allies have naval superiority, which means they can gain a foothold wheter they can expand and deny German reinforcement is another matter). All in all Germany is not the juggernaut as it was in 1941 and the Red Army had two/three years in peace to finish the reorganization, started after the Winter War.

[bz249]

But okay, let's say Stalin do not want to join the war. However assume the German HQ is not 100% certain in that. How large is a credible deterrent against the 43/44 Red Army? Because this force is tied down on the East Front. Germany could not avoid two front deployements. Two front war, maybe, if the deterrent force on the East is strong enough. But a significant portion of the Wehrmacht is facing the Soviets, no matter whether there is a shooting war or not.

[Simon_Jester]

Why it was all that unlikely that the Soviet Union would attack when they would be prepared? Both pre 1941 and post 1945 policies had shown that they are an agressive power who were happy to expand their sphere of influence (Japan followed a policy of not going to war with the Soviet Union, yet they were attacked).

Russia never picked a fight with anyone who could realistically beat them. Pre-1941, everyone they attacked was weaker than they were, to the point where even if their invasion was defeated there was no real risk to their core territory. Post-1945, ditto: they occupied Eastern Europe, but didn't go starting a war with the Western Allies.

A Soviet attack on Germany would be a major strategic risk, because the Germans might very well be able to hold on the defensive if they had their 1941 army to do it with. A Wehrmacht with the numbers and logistical situation of 1941, the weapons of 1943-44, fighting on the pre-Barbarossa border, would be a formidable nut for the Russians to crack. And if they didn't win on the offensive, they'd risk counterattack and political problems within the USSR.

Would the Soviets have taken the chance? I see no reason to assume so, not until an Allied victory over Germany was certain. And Allied victory over Germany, absent the Russian front, could not possibly be certain until 1946-47 and mass deployment of the atomic bomb, because an Anglo-American invasion of Europe would be unthinkable without the Germans fighting on the Eastern Front.

Since "the Allies might nuke us in five years" was not on the Germans' strategic radar, they had no reason to plan on that basis.

[Thanas]

Well he could gain material support from the Western Allies (opening the Eastern Front is rather important to them... so they would pay practically any price for that). Joining the winning side is never a bad idea.

What makes you think the allies would be the ones winning here, especially if the USA does not factor into it?

Also he could expand his Empire.

Cost>reward.

Anyway its about 1943/44 the strategic bombing campaign is running,

No way. If the Luftwaffe is not spent in Russia, there is no way Britain alone can run any such heavy air campaign.

Africa was fallen (Germany simply could not avoid it, there is no way the Axis can supply a force strong enough to deal with Anglo-American forces). German troops are diverted to Italy and Norway (the two logical minor invasion target) which might fall by that time (the Allies have naval superiority, which means they can gain a foothold wheter they can expand and deny German reinforcement is another matter).

No way as well. Norway was very hard to invade and I would not want to be on the British Army going up against the Wehrmacht in Italy alone.

All in all Germany is not the juggernaut as it was in 1941 and the Red Army had two/three years in peace to finish the reorganization, started after the Winter War.

There is no guarantee that without combat experience the reorganization will do that much or progress that quickly.

[spaceviking]

If the Soviets were to attack the Germans first wouldn't this play to many of the German strengths. The Germans would not have to enter hostile urban areas, they could fight the Soviets in largely open terrain, and they would not have nearly the same logistical problems they had when they pushed father and farther into Russia. They would even be able to move their non motorized troops by rail.

Even the resolve of the ordinary Soviet solider may have been worse. Soviets soldiers fought so hard often because they knew that the German were fighting a war of extermination.

[Thanas]

Yes. Also, the Germans would have almost guaranteed air superiority and a more mobile force. We saw in WWI how it goes when a mobile defending force goes up against an undersupplied slow attacker.

[bz249]

If the Soviets were to attack the Germans first wouldn't this play to many of the German strengths. The Germans would not have to enter hostile urban areas, they could fight the Soviets in largely open terrain, and they would not have nearly the same logistical problems they had when they pushed father and farther into Russia. They would even be able to move their non motorized troops by rail.

Even the resolve of the ordinary Soviet solider may have been worse. Soviets soldiers fought so hard often because they knew that the German were fighting a war of extermination.

Soviet morale would be an issue in an offensive operation, that's right. And this could make Stalin think twice about being agressive... but the SU does not have to start shooting to hurt the Germans. They just have to be there with a huge army. This alone would create the Eastern Front. Yes without the casualities, but a large portion of the Wehrmacht, if not the bulk, should watch to the East. And there is a war happening, which makes Germany weaker and weaker.

[Thanas]

Soviet morale would be an issue in an offensive operation, that's right. And this could make Stalin think twice about being agressive... but the SU does not have to start shooting to hurt the Germans. They just have to be there with a huge army. This alone would create the Eastern Front. Yes without the casualities, but a large portion of the Wehrmacht, if not the bulk, should watch to the East. And there is a war happening, which makes Germany weaker and weaker.

So? Unless the US gets into the fight (and if Germany in this scenario is smart enough to stop attacking the USSR, I see no reason to believe it would become suicidal) the war is pretty much a stalemate. Eventually Britain and Germany would have to compromise somewhere and the war would be over.

[bz249]

So? Unless the US gets into the fight (and if Germany in this scenario is smart enough to stop attacking the USSR, I see no reason to believe it would become suicidal) the war is pretty much a stalemate. Eventually Britain and Germany would have to compromise somewhere and the war would be over.

For that Germany should stop the Atlantic campaign. Would they be that smart? Since with the submarine warfare going on there is a chance that the US would decide, that Reuben James incident No#x is a good enough casus belli. The US was making steps to receive a provocation they needed... yes they did not expect anything like Pearl Harbor, but the Neutrality Patrol and the Destroyers for bases deal was an indication that eventually they will enter the war.

(Now the sub campaign was a terrible idea, it was impossible to defeat the UK with it, but at least it paved the way for another Lusitania style fiasco. This was some important experience from WWI, yet noone cared.)

[Thanas]

So? Unless the US gets into the fight (and if Germany in this scenario is smart enough to stop attacking the USSR, I see no reason to believe it would become suicidal) the war is pretty much a stalemate. Eventually Britain and Germany would have to compromise somewhere and the war would be over.

For that Germany should stop the Atlantic campaign. Would they be that smart? Since with the submarine warfare going on there is a chance that the US would decide, that Reuben James incident No#x is a good enough casus belli. The US was making steps to receive a provocation they needed... yes they did not expect anything like Pearl Harbor, but the Neutrality Patrol and the Destroyers for bases deal was an indication that eventually they will enter the war.

I would like to see some evidence for that. Roosevelt was pushing for a war, but that does not translate into an automatic US entry into the war.

[bz249]

I would like to see some evidence for that. Roosevelt was pushing for a war, but that does not translate into an automatic US entry into the war.

So you are saying that Germany could sink American warships for free (something which they will do... that was the whole point of the Neutrality Patrol)? The real Reuben James incident made the US Congress to allow arming of merchant ships and allowed them to enter European waters. Apart from being more hostile to the Axis, this also put more American shipping into the danger, accordingly a way increased the chance for a new sinking. What would happen after the second or third of those?

[Thanas]

I would like to see some evidence for that. Roosevelt was pushing for a war, but that does not translate into an automatic US entry into the war.

So you are saying that Germany could sink American warships for free (something which they will do... that was the whole point of the Neutrality Patrol)? The real Reuben James incident made the US Congress to allow arming of merchant ships and allowed them to enter European waters. Apart from being more hostile to the Axis, this also put more American shipping into the danger, accordingly a way increased the chance for a new sinking. What would happen after the second or third of those?

That depends entirely on too many speculative factors. In any case, what is your evidence that congress would just give FDR carte blanche? It is one thing to risk ships and people who enter into risky business willingly, it is another thing to go to war on a side that does not look to be the winning one at the moment.

[Sea Skimmer]

These are the subjects of the lectures on the December 1940 higher officers conference. Concentration on a defensive mindset?..

You are amazingly retarded. A lecture means fucking nothing, does the phrase well rounded education mean anything to you, every single one of those topics is relevant to offensive and defensive operations because you train people to know what to expect an attacker to do, and a defender to do regardless of which you are doing. That’s part of understand warfare, something you very obviously do not.

But hey look, unlike your random unsourced block of text, here's a link to a Soviet Staff Lesson on Front Level Offensive Reconnaissance. If we accepted the kind of idiot logic you employ, this is CLEAR PROOF the USSR went and invaded Europe in the 1980s! They trained people for it, it was the plan! So thus it could would and did happen!
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000119 ... 197565.pdf

Now kindly fuck off from this thread, you've already proven you are too dumb for words.

[spaceviking]

Soviet morale would be an issue in an offensive operation, that's right. And this could make Stalin think twice about being agressive... but the SU does not have to start shooting to hurt the Germans. They just have to be there with a huge army. This alone would create the Eastern Front. Yes without the casualities, but a large portion of the Wehrmacht, if not the bulk, should watch to the East. And there is a war happening, which makes Germany weaker and weaker.

So? Unless the US gets into the fight (and if Germany in this scenario is smart enough to stop attacking the USSR, I see no reason to believe it would become suicidal) the war is pretty much a stalemate. Eventually Britain and Germany would have to compromise somewhere and the war would be over.

By stop attacking the USSR, do you mean pursuing a limited assault against the Soviet Union? Would this be an just an attack on the forces mounting on borders, or an actual invasion then suing for peace before getting bogged down?

[Purple]

I think he means it as in stop verbally attacking them and shift the focus of their propaganda to something else thus allowing them to back off ideologically from the kind of mindset that made Barbarossa happen.

[bz249]

That depends entirely on too many speculative factors. In any case, what is your evidence that congress would just give FDR carte blanche? It is one thing to risk ships and people who enter into risky business willingly, it is another thing to go to war on a side that does not look to be the winning one at the moment.

There is no evidence, however they did it one war earlier. And the Reuben James incident happened in an environment where American ships and German submarines were already doing hostile actions against each other. This was something the Congress approved they also approved putting the Coast Guard into war stance. So there might be speculative elements, but the Atlantic campaign already caused a limited war with US.