Off-Topic: TMA Soviet Infantry

[Barkhorn1x]

You do not apply enough double-think to your logic. Not NS theory is (or was) at fault - it was the fault of Germany and the Germans not to have won the war. The theory was right - the people were wrong.

See?

Yes, all socialist theories are correct. They've just never been implemented correctly! 'Tis a shame that utopia can never be reached with such imperfect human material. But we must all KEEP TRYING as a 100+ million dead is a small price to pay for such a glorious future.

[agusto]

You do not apply enough double-think to your logic. Not NS theory is (or was) at fault - it was the fault of Germany and the Germans not to have won the war. The theory was right - the people were wrong.

See?

No, the theory of National-Socialism was wrong. I mean just logically, even if you completely ignore moral. That is a matter of fact. See, you gotta ask yourself: what is the purpose of a having a society organized in a state? What is a state? A state is a continuosley self-recreating process to wich every last individual within it contributes to in order to to increase the life expectancy and quality of life of everyone of its citizens. That is what people want from the state they live within: the health and saftey for themselves and their loved ones that only the masses can provide, independently of the type of government that state has or of wich ideology it is. Take the road net, for example. A single person could neither afford nor build a road on his or her own. But we work, we pay taxes to the state and the state then uses this money to build the road network from wich we all profit in one form or another.

And this where the theory of National-Socialism fails.

National-Socialism is an ideology based upon the scientificaly proven misbelieve that the aryan race, as the strongest race, has the the right to subdue the weaker races in order to increase its own quality of life and life expectancy. This was justified by taking nature as as an example: the bigger fish eats the samller fish in order to survive. He has the right to do so because he is stronger. That principle is also knowen as Social-Darwinism. However, with humans, it doesnt work that way because unlike fish, there are no human races that differ so significantely from each other in a biological way that one race can just eat up another without tremendous efforts to be made. In fact, since humans are all more or less equal in a biological way, overwhelming another human beeing is usually a very resource demanding action, it simply doesnt pay. And this is why the NS state failed:

1) It failed to keep itself alive. This is so because it failed to coexist with its more powerful neighbours. The reason, however, why it started a conflict it couldnt win anyways was the above stated misbelieve in the superiority of the aryan race: in NS theory, germany could not loose the war becaus ethe aryans, as the strongest race,must ultimately be able to defeat all weaker races. When Hitler started the sucidal attack on the USSR and later, in December 1941, declared war against the USA, he believed that the racial superiority of the germans alone will be enough to defeat his enemys. Obviously this was not correct.

2) It did not give its supporters what they wanted: an increased life expectency, personal saftey and health for themselves and their loved ones. In fact in led to the complete opposite: germany was destroyed, millions killed, the country was devasteted and and struck by famines.

[Sublime]

You do not apply enough double-think to your logic. Not NS theory is (or was) at fault - it was the fault of Germany and the Germans not to have won the war. The theory was right - the people were wrong.

See?

Ahhh the Adolf Hitler explanation. Germans deserved the utter destruction and conquest of Germany because they were too weak to win in spite of his meddling.

So how do Soviet guns stack AT wise to US and Brit cannon? How does the T34's 76 compare to say the US? How does the 85mm on the T34 compare to a 17lber? Did the Soviets get APDS ammo?

[Michael Emrys]

Just the fact that a Red Armysoldier had been in Germany in 1945, and witnessed "Western decadence", could earn him a "workholiday". Even if he had been loyal to Stalin and the Party.

And any Sovietsoldier or civilian who had worked for the Germans, even if -like for instance in the city of Charkov and in practically all the POWcamps filled with captured Sovietsoldiers -the ONLY alternative was death by starvation, got one of those "horrorholidays". That is, if they weren't shot first.

Stalin and people of his ilk tend to paint with a rather broad brush. "Kill them all; let God sort them out."

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Russia is already teeming with illegal immigrants and all tainted with corruption...

Russia is corrupt today largely because it was corrupt under the communists and corrupt under the czars. Russia has a history of corruption and bad government. Whether it will in time evolve an ethos that is reasonably free of corruption remains to be seen. But I predict this: Russia under a national-socialist regime would quickly become the most corrupt of all.

Michael

[Macisle]

Interesting discussion. I know I should probably sit back and let this thread peter out (or have its peter cut off), but well...what the hey...

Not to defend NS or the Nazis, but an accurate analysis of it would take into account that, in its early years, it did in fact improve the lives of Germans (yes, of "acceptable" bloodlines) on the lower rungs of society. It diluted the hold of the traditional class system and gave people access to education, recreation and opportunity that they would not have otherwise had at that time.

Having said that, an accurate analysis would also make clear that, had Germany stayed democratic, such benefits would have come over time anyway, and that National Socialism was rotten at its core and doomed to failure. Why? Because it set up society in terms of race and restructured it as essentially a weapon for attempting to actualize the specific utopian visions of its leaders. Under such a system, war is the inevitable result and therefore, the initial benefits are far outweighed by the long-term consequences.

As for Communism, as others have pointed out, it has always and will always fail, because it does not adequately take into account human nature and motivation. Such a utopian vision requires that an elite be established to manage (force) the reshaping of society towards the vision. That elite then becomes corrupt and oppressive towards the general society. Stagnation is the result.

Now, as far a generic Socialism is concerned...the jury is still out. My guess is that all countries, in the medium term, will basically drift from wherever they currently are on the spectrum to something along the lines of what exists in, say, the Germany of today. I'm not necessarily advocating it, but I think it's inevitable, because the world is increasingly interconnected, financially, economically, and environmentally and populations will want their governments to help provide buffers against negative pressures. As for the long term, something new will come. Current ideologies and systems will be inadequate for the problems that humans will face in the future.

The USA has had a lot of "fat" to live off, having been the dominant power so long. However, as more countries develop to competitive levels, the US is going to have to reassess ideological "givens" that it has held since the end of WWII. Allowing global access to our markets and free-form "creative destruction" while other powerful players protect their industries will almost certainly lead to one thing: the US losing those industries.

To an extent, there is an arrogance to the American viewpoint that is not so out of line with the NS view as they marched their armies into the Soviet Union. "We are superior and therefore, will will win." "We are American and if only there is a level playing field, we will win." Bollocks. If the playing field is level, we may win and we may lose. If we don't take any measures to build up and hold industries that we want while the competition is doing so, then we will likely lose. To think to the contrary is to essentially fall on racist/nationalist notions that are going to land you in the loser column eventually.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue for "Socialism." In truth, I think that the road ahead is going to yield new systems that are currently outside of human experience. By the time I hit retirement age (several decades away), the world of work is going to change drastically. Massive swaths of the population will simply not be needed for virtually ANY form of work. How will society accommodate them? How will they develop a sense of place and value that will keep them from degenerating into dangerous behavior patterns?

Add to this the population increases and the state of the environment and we are really going to be in sci-fi territory, folks. WWII-era political models and the 20th century political frameworks and ideologies are going to seem quaint indeed in another few decades.

The nature of work, how we value human life and endeavor, the nature of human political and financial organization, and basic life and survival (basic ecology and numbers, folks) are all going to be reshaped and evolve to a new place.

So, to sum it all up:

National Socialism: racist utopian dead-end crap.

Communism: utopian dead-end crap.

Socialism: what's usable/relevant will feed into a new system.

Free-market Capitalism as we know it today in the USA: what's usable/relevant will feed into a new system, but much will simply give way to the pressures of technology, increased global population and environmental needs.

[Duckman]

To return to the subject, there's a good overview of the WWII Soviet rifle platoon and its evolution here:

http://www.avalanchepress.com/BehindCounters3.php

For comparison, a look at the German panzergrenadier platoon:

http://www.avalanchepress.com/BehindCounters.php

...and the regular German landser platoon:

http://www.avalanchepress.com/BehindCounters2.php

The Soviet squad clearly has less firepower than the German one because of the MG 34/42. It is quite comparable to the British or American one though. The American squad has a more firepower downrange because of the Garand, but with a couple of extra SMGs the Soviet squad has more at close range.

The Soviet all-SMG squad is an interesting variant, with the only real counterpart being the late-war German StG 44 squad.

As for organic AT weapons, the Soviet infantry as already mentioned don't have much but since German tanks were scarce and tank (and TD and SPG) support was fairly plentuful late in the war this was probably not a big issue. Looking a pictures from late war the Soviets also seem to have used a lot of manhandled AT and infantry guns, e.g. in Berlin.

[Ts4EVER]

Some pointers about that Russian organisation above: The author is right when he says that smgs were not issued on a wide scale in the first few months of the war. At that time the PPsH41 had just started production and while it would soon turn into one of the most common infantry weapons, like, ever, initial production was slow. The Soviets had PPD34, PPD34/38 and PPD40 smgs, but not in nearly as large numbers as the PPsH41 later.

After the winter war, the Soviets had decided to equip all their riflemen with SVT40 rifles. This proved to be a mistake, since they were expensive and unreliable (especially in the hands of relatively ill-trained conscripts). Because of that, production was all but halted in 1942 and replaced by the M91/30 / PPsH41 mix. It is quite ironic (and few games portray this) that the Russians had more semi-automatic rifles in the beginning of the war than at its end, in stark contrast to the Germans. Note however that even at the height of its deployment only a few elite units were fully equipped with the SVT40, while in most rifle units only the squad leader received one.

The Russians significantly increased the fire power of their squads later in the war by issuing additional DP lmgs, up to 3 in some organisations I have seen. At the same time the average size of squads continued to decrease.

[baron Jacquinot]

Russia is corrupt today largely because it was corrupt under the communists and corrupt under the czars. Russia has a history of corruption and bad government. Whether it will in time evolve an ethos that is reasonably free of corruption remains to be seen. But I predict this: Russia under a national-socialist regime would quickly become the most corrupt of all.

Michael

Yes corruption in Russia have long story, but now its had reached huge sizes, almost all good beginnings of Putin drowning in a swamp of corruption. I think the main causes of corruption is the lack of proper ideology.

[baron Jacquinot]

Stalin and people of his ilk tend to paint with a rather broad brush. "Kill them all; let God sort them out."

Michael

In fact Stalin's repressions at 37, were not as extensive as generally accepted killers were Leon Trotsky and his Zionist gang.

[baron Jacquinot]

You know the German national socialists would have thought you subhuman and a waste of oxygen and space, since you're Russian?

In fact if you know Waffen SS had many Slavic divisions, such as the Russian Division RONA, the Ukrainian Division Galiciya, was also a Russian Liberation army of General Vlasov, the Cossacks of General Krasnov, etc. in all military newsreels there is not a word about the Russians, mainly refer to the Bolsheviks, as if emphasizing that the war goes against the Bolsheviks. I think a special Hitler's hatred of the Slavs is myth hyped up by Soviet and Western propaganda.

Anyway I not Hitler's fan and don't love Germans very much ,although, as a nation, they are worth being with respect and we have something to learn from them, but I think any man of any nation may be NS, nigger, Jew, Arab, anyone, ideology has no nationality.

[Sublime]

Or perhaps Nazi propaganda not to alienate people fighting for them more than they already had? They called you guys untermenschen. Means 'sub-human' or below human. And it's nonsense that there would be Jewish NS. NS deliberately targeted and blamed Jews. Its bizarre you jumped all over everyone for perceived insults to Red Army troops and now you say your a national socialist? So you do realize that those same Red Army troops would have tortured and killed you for those beliefs and what those beliefs meant to their friends, families and lives?

Is the Holocaust a myth too? It's not. There's proof. Just like there's proof Hitler and the Germans hated you guys (the Russians) as a people. Moscow? Turn it in to a water reservoir. Need to test Zyklon B and see if it kills Jews? Test it on Red Army troops first! Einsatzgruppen, foraging off the land freezing and starving millions. Casual rape of women. Collective punishment for villages for partisan action.

Or treatment of prisoners. It's not Western propaganda (after all it wouldn't make us look so tough huh?) that British, CW, and US prisoners were treated fairly well. The Russian PoWs? Treated like Jews, except you were indirectly murdered usually. You need to read more history.

[von Paulus]

"I think", "I think", "I think"...

[baron Jacquinot]

Or perhaps Nazi propaganda not to alienate people fighting for them more than they already had? They called you guys untermenschen. Means 'sub-human' or below human. And it's nonsense that there would be Jewish NS. NS deliberately targeted and blamed Jews. Its bizarre you jumped all over everyone for perceived insults to Red Army troops and now you say your a national socialist? So you do realize that those same Red Army troops would have tortured and killed you for those beliefs and what those beliefs meant to their friends, families and lives?

Untermensch (German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazi racial ideology used it to describe "inferior people", especially "the masses from the East," that is Gypsies, Jews, and Slavic peoples including Belarusians, Poles, Russians and Ukrainians, although many of the Slavs were accepted as Aryans.[1][2][3]

The Nazis maintained that for example the Northern Russians had Nordic traits such as light hair and light eye colour and were racially fit to be a part of the master race. The Nazis also considered some percentages of Slavs like Russians, Croatians, Ukrainians, Czechs and Slovaks, with the initial inclusion of Poles and Belarusians to be the sufficient subjects for Germanisation. However, it was believed that for instance the Polish people were too patriotic and would ultimately resist Germanisation, what resulted in the Generalplan Ost, according to which all of the Slavs from East-Central Europe with the emphasis on the Poles, were destined to be expelled from the European continent by the Third Reich. Nevertheless, the Nazi Germans eventually decided to exterminate the Poles, so as the vast majority of the Slavic people who, along with the Jews and Gypsies, were defined as Untermenschen, dangerous for the Aryan race representing the master race.[4]

1) I think in reality Hitler did not have a clear plan for the Slavs, Barbarossa plan presuppose hurl back Bolsheviks behind Volga and nothing more. Although I'm sure that in case of victory of Hitler, we would have been second-class citizens.

2) Nonsense? Read Torah and you know that Jews much more Nationalist and socialist than any nation!

3) For me Red Army is basic Russian army, with some another ethnic groups, if you know many of Russian are real Nationalists, the friendship between the peoples of the USSR is a myth. Do you how all Russians call people from Caucasus and middle Asia? We call them churka - chock, because they have low IQ. This whole friendship and internationalism is nothing more than fiction.

[baron Jacquinot]

Is the Holocaust a myth too? It's not. There's proof. Just like there's proof Hitler and the Germans hated you guys (the Russians) as a people. Moscow? Turn it in to a water reservoir. Need to test Zyklon B and see if it kills Jews? Test it on Red Army troops first! Einsatzgruppen, foraging off the land freezing and starving millions. Casual rape of women. Collective punishment for villages for partisan action.

Or treatment of prisoners. It's not Western propaganda (after all it wouldn't make us look so tough huh?) that British, CW, and US prisoners were treated fairly well. The Russian PoWs? Treated like Jews, except you were indirectly murdered usually. You need to read more history.

Of course it was because it is war, total war, but it is not crime of NS it is German's and Hitler's crimes. Anyway if NS will take control in Russian government we can do same things with Germans))) Black humor)))

NS was good idea with bad executor.

[Barkhorn1x]

In fact Stalin's repressions at 37, were not as extensive as generally accepted killers were Leon Trotsky and his Zionist gang.

Oh my. Now that is a real wopper.

[baron Jacquinot]

Oh my. Now that is a real wopper.

Read about what did Sverdlov and Trotsky with Russian nation, it was a real genocide!

[womble]

Of course it was because it is war, total war, but it is not crime of NS it is German's and Hitler's crimes...NS was good idea with bad executor.

You're sadly misguided. And now on my ignore list for being wilfully so. Tarrah.

[Brindlewolf]

Baron,

Talking about history,wars,battles etc etc is one thing.Fusing history with politics and religion is another.Everyone's entitled to their opinion sure but reading through your posts,some of it is getting a bit offensive.I'm not personally

offended but i'm sure others could and will be.Let's leave the politics and religion out of it eh.

Never fully believe what you read or are told by others a lot of it is bull**** anyway.It all depends on the prejudices of whoever tells you what anyway,Then again that's my opinion.Like all things in life,take it with a pinch of salt

..........or if you're a Brit like me,a cup of tea

[mjkerner]

Baron,

Talking about history,wars,battles etc etc is one thing.Fusing history with politics and religion is another.Everyone's entitled to their opinion sure but reading through your posts,some of it is getting a bit offensive.I'm not personally

offended but i'm sure others could and will be.Let's leave the politics and religion out of it eh.

Never fully believe what you read or are told by others a lot of it is bull**** anyway.It all depends on the prejudices of whoever tells you what anyway,Then again that's my opinion.Like all things in life,take it with a pinch of salt

..........or if you're a Brit like me,a cup of tea

Yup, opinions are like a$$holes...everyone has one and they all stink.

[poesel]

1) It failed to keep itself alive.

2) It did not give its supporters what they wanted: an increased life expectency, personal saftey and health for themselves and their loved ones. In fact in led to the complete opposite: germany was destroyed, millions killed, the country was devasteted and and struck by famines.

First I want to make sure you understand that my post was pure irony. I really don't want to be misunderstood on this topic.

You try to counter ideology with logic. That works with people that use logic as their base of thinking. This unfortunately rules out everyone until we find the Vulcans.

If logic or just common sense would be prevalent in the world a lot of ideologies would vanish in a puff of smoke. But they don't.

Your argument under 1) that NS ideology failed because it couldn't keep itself alive is wrong. baron Jacquinot sadly proves this point. One could argue that it is even a very strong ideology that could persuade a member of a nation that just this ideology wanted to exterminate not too long ago.

2) is also wrong. Hitler and the party were extremely popular in Germany even until close to the end. If I should name one thing that the Nazis excelled at it was propaganda. They were really, really good at it. Add to it that most people also wanted to believe what they said and that the results were very good until '42. This was 9 years of Nazi reign. Only then came the setbacks.

In retrospect you are of course right. But logic doesn't stop people to think what they want - see above.

[Sublime]

First of all Baron, I dont want to tell people what to think, but in your case you should really review your sources of information. There's a saying in the Western World - 2 wrongs dont make a right. I'd say that in response to your Stalin/Trotsky argument.

Second the Nazi's planned to push the Soviets to the Ural mountains, that's past the Volga. And that was only short term planning. Second they didn't consider some Russians more suitable than others. Thats wishful thinking. To them you were all subhuman, all enemies. The Nazi's did happily execute Jews with fair hair and blue eyes. Second class citizens? You wouldn't have been citizens to the Nazis. You would have been slave labor if you had been born 60 years ago. You wouldnt exist now. If they'd won Russia would be colonised by Germans and the Russians would all be gone.

The Holocaust and stuff are Hitler's and German's crimes - but also National Socialism's. The masses didn't fight the world and kill all those innocents just because Hitler's mustache. They did it for the ideology and nonsense Hitler had trumpeted into their heads. It's a dangerous ideology, and you can see it's effects else where. Italy. First fascist country. Complete disaster for them, and every adventure launched at Mussolini's behest was either completely screwed up or saved by the Nazi's. The Nazi's were repaid by the Italians promptly switching sides on them before the battle for Italy had even really begun.

Spain. Neutral in WW2, it remained isolated and impoverished for years. I don't know as much about Spain, but I know when the Fascists went out everyone was REALLLY REALLY HAPPY.

The fact is that you couldn't even express opinions like you are in a NS or Communist state. Unless you were saying exactly what the Party wanted you to say. The fact you can even talk to people here in the US or Western Europe is because you live in a sort of democratic Russia. Albeit one where if you publish books or articles negative to the government you'll be shot or killed soon.

Why don't you read about the countless LOYAL Nazi's and Communists who got killed in power plays for their loyalty. Ernst Rohm. Couldn't believe Hitler ordered his death. Did a Heil Hitler before he was gunned down in a firing squad. Zhukov? Stalin's greatest general? Sent into exile.

Finally, I'd like to point out, that you really have no right to say 'neger' or use words like that. I for one, am white, but what would you know about black people one way or the other? Last time I checked there were about 5 blacks in Russia and they're probably all in the US embassy, or an African embassy. You wouldn't know the first thing about it.

[Rokko]

On a sidenote, the colonization plans were completely utopian. The German people simply wasn't big enough to achieve such a goal. 1915 was the last year where enough children were born to support expansionist goals. After that birth rates all over Western Europe declined (according to some theories that is the reason for the loss of the European colonies ~50 years later).

Even the attempts to colonize parts of Poland, where the Polish population had been deported, failed and the German colonies were largely unsustainable and needed huge subsidies to keep alive. There weren't even enough people to colonize and 'Germanize' small parts of Poland, even though they settled people there that were deported out of the Baltic countries (the Baltic Germans) in a mutual agreement between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. Given that, the idea to colonize everything West of the Ural seems just absurd. Had the starvation plan actually worked out as planned, Eastern Europe would have been probably devoid of human beings.

[agusto]

First I want to make sure you understand that my post was pure irony. I really don't want to be misunderstood on this topic.

Well, i thought you were serious. It is sometimes hard to understand irony when communicated solely via a text based forum.

You try to counter ideology with logic. That works with people that use logic as their base of thinking. This unfortunately rules out everyone until we find the Vulcans.

If logic or just common sense would be prevalent in the world a lot of ideologies would vanish in a puff of smoke. But they don't.

Your argument under 1) that NS ideology failed because it couldn't keep itself alive is wrong. baron Jacquinot sadly proves this point. One could argue that it is even a very strong ideology that could persuade a member of a nation that just this ideology wanted to exterminate not too long ago.

2) is also wrong. Hitler and the party were extremely popular in Germany even until close to the end. If I should name one thing that the Nazis excelled at it was propaganda. They were really, really good at it. Add to it that most people also wanted to believe what they said and that the results were very good until '42. This was 9 years of Nazi reign. Only then came the setbacks.

In retrospect you are of course right. But logic doesn't stop people to think what they want - see above.

1) We are talking about 2 different matters: i was trying to arguement that the NS ideology has proven by itself that it is not a meaningful way to organize a state. As far as i know, there currently is not a single state on the world that organizes itself after the rolemodel of NS germany because such a state could not survive.

You are talking about the NS idology as a way of thinking and that is something different, as the human thought is not subordinated excusively to logic. So even if NS was not a meaningful way to organize a state, people could still believe it would be. One does not rule out the other.

2) IMO what you said in 2) fits very well what i just said, except that:

...and that the results were very good until '42. This was 9 years of Nazi reign. Only then came the setbacks.

The early results (pre war) of the NS state that people perceived as positive were for example the decrease of unemployment or the "reinstitution of the german honour" when german troops moved into the Rhine area in order to spoil the versailles treaty.

Lets talk about the decrease of unemployment first: Hitler overstrechted the german household to achieve that. Germany was nearly bankrupt in 1938, when he got his hands on new money with the annexion of Austria. For example the building of the Autobahn was a project Hitler conducted in order to give the people the employment that they wanted and to improve germanys economy by improving its infrastructure. However there had been no way for germany to keep making such large investions over an elongated amount of time. In 1939, Hitler needed the war he wanted in order to exploit eastern Europe. It was a now or never situation. Besides that, the war in the east had been planned for a long time by Hitler. If i recall correctly, it is even in Mein Kampf, wich he wrote in 1924.

To understand the the other things, ie why it was so important for Hitlers supporters to spoil the versaille treaty was that it was perceived as unjust. One has to understand the mindset the people had back then. However i think i would really have a hard time to discuss that in english, so i would like to skip that .

On a sidenote, the colonization plans were completely utopian. The German people simply wasn't big enough to achieve such a goal. 1915 was the last year where enough children were born to support expansionist goals. After that birth rates all over Western Europe declined (according to some theories that is the reason for the loss of the European colonies ~50 years later).

Even the attempts to colonize parts of Poland, where the Polish population had been deported, failed and the German colonies were largely unsustainable and needed huge subsidies to keep alive. There weren't even enough people to colonize and 'Germanize' small parts of Poland, even though they settled people there that were deported out of the Baltic countries (the Baltic Germans) in a mutual agreement between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. Given that, the idea to colonize everything West of the Ural seems just absurd. Had the starvation plan actually worked out as planned, Eastern Europe would have been probably devoid of human beings.

Exactley.

[Sublime]

Baron, you know you refer to people in America, etc as capitalists, etc.

I dont know if you understand that here we live in a capitalist country, but most arent inherently capitalistic people, or just greedy or addicted to material. Thats only some people, you should know that in America we're not taught to hate Russia or Russians, or that we should control the world or police things. I only say that because of perceived animosity towards Americans and capitalists, and as an American I think you've just been misinformed about what Americans think or are like. I've also met several Russians, two of which I was friends with. I'm a student of your history and know some things about your country, and I wonder - what do you know about the US?