The Hitler Military Record, Volume One

[EB.]

This is NOT meant to be a controversial topic--please do not turn it into one. My people were (I consider) the greatest enemies of Nazi Germany and its leader Hitler. Our triumph over him will forever be one of our people's greatest achievements.

However, that being said, I must admit that Hitler's military achievements up to 1941 were absolutely stunning. How was he able to achieve so much in so little time? It was amazing at the time and still is today. Specifically, I wonder if anyone can keep up to Hitler's successful military record in the main computer or board wargames. For example, playing SC on a fair setting vs. the computer (hard difficulty, bonus to Allies), don't most of you have trouble matching Hitler's achievements? For example, can you always take Poland in September 39 or does it sometimes take a bit longer? The biggest one is France--what a military miracle to destroy it in May-June 1940. How many times can you or I get that done? For me, not often. And even if you do match the Hitler record for military progress in the early part of the war, you must surely admit that this is a feat, that it represents not the average or median result but an extreme end of the spectrum of possibilities. Put in another way, could anybody have done any better than Hitler during that time period strictly in terms of military progress. My opinion is "very probably not". If you can do it better or faster than Hitler was able to, then please share your gameplaying secrets with us.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I consistently take poland, france, belgium, denmark and norway by late june 1940. Poland is easy enough, but the order in which you take denmark, norway and belgium is the tricky part. Denmark, i use all my Af's two cruisers a corps, that usually wipes their unit out, so i also bring an army which i do an amphibious landing into the now un-ocupied capital. Norway and Belgium always fall soon after.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

This is NOT meant to be a controversial topic--please do not turn it into one. My people were (I consider) the greatest enemies of Nazi Germany and its leader Hitler. Our triumph over him will forever be one of our people's greatest achievements.

However, that being said, I must admit that Hitler's military achievements up to 1941 were absolutely stunning. How was he able to achieve so much in so little time? It was amazing at the time and still is today. Specifically, I wonder if anyone can keep up to Hitler's successful military record in the main computer or board wargames. For example, playing SC on a fair setting vs. the computer (hard difficulty, bonus to Allies), don't most of you have trouble matching Hitler's achievements? For example, can you always take Poland in September 39 or does it sometimes take a bit longer? The biggest one is France--what a military miracle to destroy it in May-June 1940. How many times can you or I get that done? For me, not often. And even if you do match the Hitler record for military progress in the early part of the war, you must surely admit that this is a feat, that it represents not the average or median result but an extreme end of the spectrum of possibilities. Put in another way, could anybody have done any better than Hitler during that time period strictly in terms of military progress. My opinion is "very probably not". If you can do it better or faster than Hitler was able to, then please share your gameplaying secrets with us.

The reason that the Soviet Union was almost crushed by Nazi Germany, and as a consequence suffered enormous human and economic damage from which they have yet to recover fully, was because of

The policies of Josef Stalin himself

It was Josef Stalin who made an agreement with Hitler that allowed Hitler to concentrate his full economic and military power against France, and drive the English off the Continent.

It was Josef Stalin who cravenly attacked Poland pursuant to that agreement, simply to gain territory -- like so many of Hitler's allies during the prewar period he was fooled into believing that he would gain something out of Hitler's triumph.

It was Josef Stalin who, during the attacks against Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, France, England, Yugoslavia, and Greece, sent Hitler's Germany enormous amounts of critical raw materials which funded part of Germany's continuing effort to conquer Europe.

Eventually, Stalin and Russia found themselves in the same position of every other nation that had facilitated Hitler : betrayed and fighting for their lives. They had no one but themselves to blame. Stalin's foreign policy gave Hitler the freedom and power to completely isolate Russia on the Continent in the first place.

[Melchett]

The hindrance I've found in re-creating the historical timeline is that the computer AI doesn't always behave like its real-life historical counterparts, e.g., France doesn't always sit passively behind the Maginot line waiting for Germany to strike. However, this has the advantage of making the "what if?" scenarios more realistic. A lot of "what ifs", especially those dealing with the eastern front, are based on the unrealistic assumption that one side must repeat all of its historical blunders while the other side makes no mistakes whatsoever.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by dgaad:

The reason that the Soviet Union was almost crushed by Nazi Germany, and as a consequence suffered enormous human and economic damage from which they have yet to recover fully, was because of

The policies of Josef Stalin himself

I always found the reported suprise exhibited by Joe at Barbarossa somewhat perplexing. I mean, get real. How can you be surprised that your fellow thief has decided to steal from you also?

Just goes to show that da Nile is not just a river in Egypt...

Jeff Heidman

[vonManstein39]

Stalin figured Hitler was like him, crooked and cunning but with a strong sense of self-preservation. In Hitler's place, he (Stalin) would never have been reckless enough to attack Russia with Britain undefeated, so he assumed Hitler wouldn't be that reckless either.

Wrong!

[EB.]

Well, I see that you could not resist turning even this post into a forum for anti-Soviet propaganda yet again.

A few quick points:

The Nazi-Soviet Pact was a brilliant move by Stalin actually. It gave the Soviets a lot more time to prepare for war. Much more military production and much higher quality equipment (T-34 tank as the best example). The Soviets gained a great deal of territory which later provided an important buffer zone. The seizure of the Baltic States, Eastern Poland (well, we call it Western Ukraine and Byelorussia), and Moldavia pushed the front lines much farther to the west which was very helpful in summer of 1941 when war finally did break. Furthermore, at the time it seemed an excellent gamble--who would have guessed that the French would surrender without even fighting? What was most probable back then is that the Germans would have been far more bogged down in the West than actually happened historically. We cannot call this unwise by Stalin however--in fact, at the time, to assume that the French would be that weak, traitorous, and self-destructive would have been reckless planning.

The Germans also gained by the treaty, of course, but if you compare Soviet military production to German military production, you can easily see that the time passed from 1939 to 1941 benefitted the Soviets more. Specifically, their rate of production was greater than the Germans, just like it was during the war itself even though so much territory was lost. Time was on the Soviet side, and Stalin understood this very well. Read the Politburo transcripts and economic reports from those weeks and months themselves, and you would see this clearly. The documents are freely available in Washington DC at this very moment, though they are written in Russian and not professionally translated yet. Problem is that virtually NO historical scholars have really dug into these materials. Instead, everyone wants to quote old rag books by Khrushchev or the German generals which serve as nothing but fabricated anti-Soviet propaganda. Scholars should look more to the original documents than hearsay and anecdotes.

Anyway, like I was saying, time was on the Soviet side. And quite clearly, Hitler's Nazi Germany was always in a big race against time--Hitler clearly (and wisely) understood that time was against him. The more time that passed without destroying the Soviets, the more dangerous things became for Germany. In fact, if the Germans had not attacked in 1941, they themselves would have been attacked in 1.5 to 2 years (probably) by an even stronger Soviet Union. So the Germans were in a race against time for their survival, which they ultimately lost, though at times it seemed that they might have been able to pull it off.

One final point is on the "surprise attack". Again, I strongly suggest that you go to the original sources. The real reports concerning preparations, deployments, etc. show quite clearly that the Soviets and Stalin himself knew of course that the Germans were going to attack. The argument that the Soviets were completely unprepared and taken by surprise is again just a post-war fabrication which does not stand up to sustained critical analysis. In other words, it sounds great for anti-Soviet anti-Russian propaganda, but it just is not true. If you trust anecdotes more than documents, then ask any old Soviet veteran if he knew in early 1941 that Germany was going to attack, and he will say Koneshno (of course!). My God, one of the simplest pieces of evidence is the fact that Stalin's hand-picked song played endlessly on Soviet radio in May 1941 was Yesli Zavtra Voyna ("If Tomorrow there is War"). Maybe this is corny evidence, but it is enlightening nontheless.

The big problem for the Soviets was that they were facing the biggest concentration of military power in world history. They could not help but be crushed at the borders and pushed back. They fact that they held strong and even tried to counterattack gave the country precious time to engage in full mobilization. The result was seemingly endless new Soviet units being formed. Because the Soviets faced such an immense onslaught, they couldn't help but suffer from a degree of operational surprise. Like in a boxing match, if you get punched, you get momentarily stunned even if you knew that the punch was coming. Also similar to the US experience in Pearl Harbor--the US clearly knew that the Japanese were going to attack, but still they were caught "by surprise". Even more so for the US in the Philippines, which happened with even more notice. Back to the main point, though, while the Soviets suffered operational surprise in June 1941, I think that it is impossible to argue truthfully that they suffered strategic surprise, much less grand strategic surprise.

Final, final point on the Nazi-Soviet Pact: if the Soviets did not have nonagression with the Germans, then what would the result be? There would have been immediate war between Germany and the Soviets, to the detrimental effect of both, while the Western Allies could sit back safely and do nothing. Great for the West, but not for the Soviets. Given the grand strategic context, the Pact was a very wise move by Stalin in the long run. Don't forget--Stalin was the grand winner of World War Two.

[Gman]

E.B. I think you have done your homework. I've read a several books one of which is "Barbarossa" by Allan Clarke. He explores into more detail some of what your talking about. Well done.

[Jeff Heidman]

I see that you cannot help but hi-jack the thread to promulgate your anti-Western propaganda and prmote the sainthood of your favorite butcher.

What color is the sky in the world you come from?

I find the idea that invading several sovereign nations and subjugating them in cahoots with the greatest crimianal of all time being a good idea rather amusing, if the reality wasn't so depressing. How noble of Stalin to invade Poland and slaughter them like cattle, all in order to save the world from Hitler...

News flash:

1938 Germany and the USSR don't share a border. I know that you will say this is just post-war anti-soviet, anti-Russian propaganda, but last I checked there was this country called "Poland" inconveniently stuck between Germany and the USSR.

I am sure the best move to make for Stalin being worried about a German attack is to destroy said country and occupy it. Yeah, that makes sense. There is no border with your "sworn" enemy, so the "smart" thing to do would be to crawl into bed with Hitler and make one...right.

Jeff

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Gman:

E.B. I think you have done your homework. I've read a several books one of which is "Barbarossa" by Allan Clarke. He explores into more detail some of what your talking about. Well done.

I have read Barbarossa, and Clark makes no such claim.

Berkut

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

The Nazi-Soviet Pact was a brilliant move by Stalin actually. It gave the Soviets a lot more time to prepare for war.

It would not have been necessary to prepare for a war of survival against the Germans if Stalin had not agreed to let them crush Poland and France in the first place.

It also enabled the Germans to concentrate their full military industrial might against France, England and the West. This may be a hard concept for you to understand EB, but the leaders of the time, particularly Hitler and Stalin, were thinking in *strategic* terms. Strategically, Stalin knew that Germany would now turn West after the Non-Aggression Pact.

This policy ENNABLED Germany to ISOLATE the Soviet Union on the Continent of Europe. The policy ENNABLED Germany to defeat the Soviet Union's western barrier in the form of Poland, which the Germans would have to crush in order to have access to Russia. These effect of the policy is much more important that giving the Soviet Union a few more years to prepare for war. Such a war would not have been necessary if Stalin hadn't made the agreement in the first place.

. . . pushed the front lines much farther to the west which was very helpful in summer of 1941 when war finally did break. Furthermore, at the time it seemed an excellent gamble--who would have guessed that the French would surrender without even fighting?

An unnecessary gamble. Had Stalin not made the agreement in the first place, it would have been impossible for the Germans to concentrate all their military force against France, and consequently the war in the West would never have occurred, or devolved into stalemate.

(side note : Yes the French surrendered without fighting. Right. The Germans suffered over 100,000 casualties in the Western Campaign due to bad bidets).

One final point is on the "surprise attack". Again, I strongly suggest that you go to the original sources. The real reports concerning preparations, deployments, etc. show quite clearly that the Soviets and Stalin himself knew of course that the Germans were going to attack. The argument that the Soviets were completely unprepared and taken by surprise is again just a post-war fabrication which does not stand up to sustained critical analysis. In other words, it sounds great for anti-Soviet anti-Russian propaganda, but it just is not true. If you trust anecdotes more than documents, then ask any old Soviet veteran if he knew in early 1941 that Germany was going to attack, and he will say Koneshno (of course!). My God, one of the simplest pieces of evidence is the fact that Stalin's hand-picked song played endlessly on Soviet radio in May 1941 was Yesli Zavtra Voyna ("If Tomorrow there is War"). Maybe this is corny evidence, but it is enlightening nontheless.

Yes, I'm sure that after the surrender of France, old Joe recognized his mistake. He now had no balance against German power. He now had no army hostile to Germany on the Continent but his own. His own policy had allowed this development. The Soviets probably recognized the danger as early as November, 1940, and is evidenced by the famous meeting between Molotov and Hitler which took place that month.

Stalin, however, remained in the realm of wishful thinking. He hoped that Germany would attempt to finish the war against Britain before turning to Russia. The moves against Yugoslavia and Greece, and the British in North Africa, must have appeared to the Soviets as a new strategy against Britain's Mediterranean position, not as what it was : the securing of Germany's southern flank for a massive attack against Russia.

The big problem for the Soviets was that they were facing the biggest concentration of military power in world history. They could not help but be crushed at the borders and pushed back.

A concentration of force that Stalin himself had helped to bring about.

Also, the poor performance of the numerically equal Red Army was due, again, in part, to Stalin's decimation of the Red Army officer corps during the Purges of 1934-1938, which incidentally also killed millions of civilians.

[ October 16, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I find the idea that invading several sovereign nations and subjugating them in cahoots with the greatest crimianal of all time being a good idea rather amusing, if the reality wasn't so depressing. How noble of Stalin to invade Poland and slaughter them like cattle, all in order to save the world from Hitler...

Jeff

Jeff, how sadly misguided you are.

Stalin was the greatest man in all history.

We all know that the Purge of the Soviet Officer Corps insured that only "reliable" officers would be in command of the Glorious Red Army. This is proved by the fact that no one deserted from the Red Army except the criminal Vlasov and about 5 million other Red Army troops.

We all know that a nation preparing for war is MUCH STRONGER when you kill off about 20 million unnecessary people over a four year period of industrial reorganization.

We all know that sending millions of people to the Gulag for crimes such as accidentally stepping on a photo of Stalin while cleaning a room makes all citizens much more patriotic and willing to die to defend the only person who truely understands the needs of proletariats : Josef Stalin.

[ev]

Originally posted by EB.:

This is NOT meant to be a controversial topic--please do not turn it into one. My people were (I consider) the greatest enemies of Nazi Germany and its leader Hitler. Our triumph over him will forever be one of our people's greatest achievements.

However, that being said, I must admit that Hitler's military achievements up to 1941 were absolutely stunning. How was he able to achieve so much in so little time? It was amazing at the time and still is today. Specifically, I wonder if anyone can keep up to Hitler's successful military record in the main computer or board wargames. For example, playing SC on a fair setting vs. the computer (hard difficulty, bonus to Allies), don't most of you have trouble matching Hitler's achievements? For example, can you always take Poland in September 39 or does it sometimes take a bit longer? The biggest one is France--what a military miracle to destroy it in May-June 1940. How many times can you or I get that done? For me, not often. And even if you do match the Hitler record for military progress in the early part of the war, you must surely admit that this is a feat, that it represents not the average or median result but an extreme end of the spectrum of possibilities. Put in another way, could anybody have done any better than Hitler during that time period strictly in terms of military progress. My opinion is "very probably not". If you can do it better or faster than Hitler was able to, then please share your gameplaying secrets with us.

[ev]

Are we confusing Hittler's achivements with those of Germany's high command?

This is NOT meant to be a controversial topic--please do not turn it into one. My people were (I consider) the greatest enemies of Nazi Germany and its leader Hitler. Our triumph over him will forever be one of our people's greatest achievements.

However, that being said, I must admit that Hitler's military achievements up to 1941 were absolutely stunning. How was he able to achieve so much in so little time? It was amazing at the time and still is today. Specifically, I wonder if anyone can keep up to Hitler's successful military record in the main computer or board wargames. For example, playing SC on a fair setting vs. the computer (hard difficulty, bonus to Allies), don't most of you have trouble matching Hitler's achievements? For example, can you always take Poland in September 39 or does it sometimes take a bit longer? The biggest one is France--what a military miracle to destroy it in May-June 1940. How many times can you or I get that done? For me, not often. And even if you do match the Hitler record for military progress in the early part of the war, you must surely admit that this is a feat, that it represents not the average or median result but an extreme end of the spectrum of possibilities. Put in another way, could anybody have done any better than Hitler during that time period strictly in terms of military progress. My opinion is "very probably not". If you can do it better or faster than Hitler was able to, then please share your gameplaying secrets with us.

[EB.]

One poster points out quite correctly that in 1938 the Soviets and Germans do not even share a border. Fully agreed on this point, of course. What I meant with respect to the benefits of moving the Soviet border westward was that there would be a greater buffer zone. I assume based upon my historical research that had there been no Nazi-Soviet Pact the following things would have happened.

First, the Germans would have invaded Poland.

Then the Allies would have declared war on Germany but would have not taken any real offensive actions against the Germans. The Germans would easily crush Poland, absorbing it entirely instead of just the western portion. That would create your new German-Soviet frontier, far to the east of what it really was from the Pact. At some point during the Polish collapse, the Soviets might have become involved. Or, in the alternative, after the full Polish defeat, the Germans would have turned next against the Soviets. In either case, what you have in the initial stage of the war would be the Germans and Soviets fighting each other, Poland completely destroyed, the Soviet initial border far to the East, and the Western Allies sitting safely behind the Maginot line watching the Soviets and Germans kill each other off. This sequence of events would have been catastrophic for the Germans but especially so for the Soviets. Like I said before, the Soviets benefitted very greatly from the time given them in the Pact from 1939 to 1941. If they had to go to war in 1939, the quantity and quality of their units could not have been so great.

Anyway, one of the most important things to remember is that the Allies did not want to cooperate with the Soviets, did not want to fight against the Germans at all. They wanted to sit back and let everybody else do their fighting for them. Do not forget that Stalin tried for a full decade to have "united fronts" and "collective security" to stop Hitler, but the Allies on numerous occasions simply refused to cooperate. This policy was of course "appeasement". It was obviously designed to avoid getting the Allies in war, but the ultimate purpose of course was to destroy the Soviets--as said many times by most Western political and industrial leaders (Henry Ford, for example), they much preferred Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco to the communists. Hell, the CIA still has that policy today, as evidenced throughout Latin America and the rest of the Third World. If you have studied the Spanish Civil War, for example, you know how the West deliberately starved the Spanish Republicans by "nonintervention" while knowingly allowing the Germans and Italians to intervene on a very large scale in favor of Franco. I mean, that is exactly the kind of "cooperation" that Stalin could expect on a regular basis from the Allies.

So, you see, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was still a very wise move by Stalin when you consider the strategic alternatives and the context. Better to stay neutral and race to build up Soviet power than to pull the West's chestnuts out of the fire.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

One poster points out quite correctly that in 1938 the Soviets and Germans do not even share a border. . . .

The didn't share a border until Uncle Joe himself agreed to a divsion of central Europe that put half the space between the Baltic and the Black Seas in direct contact between the Soviet Union and Germany.

First, the Germans would have invaded Poland.

Then the Allies would have declared war on Germany but would have not taken any real offensive actions against the Germans. The Germans would easily crush Poland, absorbing it entirely instead of just the western portion. That would create your new German-Soviet frontier, far to the east of what it really was from the Pact. At some point during the Polish collapse, the Soviets might have become involved. Or, in the alternative, after the full Polish defeat, the Germans would have turned next against the Soviets.

Or, alternatively, the Soviets would not have launched their invasion of Finland in November 1939, and instead used the resources wasted in that war to further prepare their own military for defense.

Or, alternatively, the Germans would not have invaded Poland in the first place because they had no guarantee that they would not now and thereafter be involved in a two front war, which had been the bane of all German strategic planning since Frederick The Great. Instead, Stalin gave Germany a free hand to fight a one front war against first, Poland, and then France.

In either case, what you have in the initial stage of the war would be the Germans and Soviets fighting each other, Poland completely destroyed, the Soviet initial border far to the East, and the Western Allies sitting safely behind the Maginot line watching the Soviets and Germans kill each other off. This sequence of events would have been catastrophic for the Germans but especially so for the Soviets.

The German Army could not have invaded the Soviet Union without the direct assistance of the Soviet Union to clear the Continent of all belligerent forces.

The German army was in NO position to attack the Soviet Union in 1939 or 1940, assuming no Non-Aggression pact, they simply did not have the forces to guard in the West while attacking East, or vice versa.

When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, they had approximately 35 combat ready infantry divisions, 6 panzer divisions, 4 light divisions, and a few miscellaneous divsions such as one cavalry division, 2 motorized divisions, and so forth. These were totally inadequate to guard both the West and the East, much less guard one front while attacking another. Only a rapid victory against Poland and the guaranteed security of one front thereafter would have enabled a concentration of force sufficient for offensive action. Stalin's agreement with Hitler allowed exactly what the Germans needed to conduct these strategic allocations of force.

Anyway, one of the most important things to remember is that the Allies did not want to cooperate with the Soviets, did not want to fight against the Germans at all. They wanted to sit back and let everybody else do their fighting for them. Do not forget that Stalin tried for a full decade to have "united fronts" and "collective security" to stop Hitler, but the Allies on numerous occasions simply refused to cooperate. This policy was of course "appeasement". It was obviously designed to avoid getting the Allies in war, but the ultimate purpose of course was to destroy the Soviets--as said many times by most Western political and industrial leaders (Henry Ford, for example), they much preferred Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco to the communists. Hell, the CIA still has that policy today, as evidenced throughout Latin America and the rest of the Third World. If you have studied the Spanish Civil War, for example, you know how the West deliberately starved the Spanish Republicans by "nonintervention" while knowingly allowing the Germans and Italians to intervene on a very large scale in favor of Franco. I mean, that is exactly the kind of "cooperation" that Stalin could expect on a regular basis from the Allies.

What utter nonsense. Obviously you've never heard of the extensive negotiations between England, France, Poland, and the Soviet Union which occurred during July and August of 1939.

Stalin took Hitler's offer agreement because Hitler offered him the one thing the Allies could not : extensive tracts of Polish, Estonian, Latvian, Romanian, and Lituanian territory. It was craven. It was also stupid because Stalin did not anticipate or expect the Germans to succeed against the West. In fact, it was Stalin who hoped the Germans and the West would weaken each other by fighting while HE watched. Unfortunately for him, things didn't turn out that way.

So, you see, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was still a very wise move by Stalin when you consider the strategic alternatives and the context. Better to stay neutral and race to build up Soviet power than to pull the West's chestnuts out of the fire.

Nope, still don't see it. Perhaps some more literature from the Agitpunkt would enlighten me.

[Tony Reale]

Where do you guys find the time to write all of this? Doesn't anyone work? When do you find time to even play the game?

Just wondering.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Tony Reale:

Where do you guys find the time to write all of this? Doesn't anyone work? When do you find time to even play the game?

Just wondering.

I award this post the "MOST RELEVANT QUESTION IN THIS THREAD" prize. Seriously.

[Tony Reale]

Originally posted by dgaad:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tony Reale:

Where do you guys find the time to write all of this? Doesn't anyone work? When do you find time to even play the game?

Just wondering.

I award this post the "MOST RELEVANT QUESTION IN THIS THREAD" prize. Seriously.</font>

[sogard]

E.B.'s posts are not new, unusual or outside the main thinking of WW II historians. Given the conventional wisdom at the time, the Nazi-Soviet pact in 1939 had benefits for both the Germans and Soviets. It is true that Stalin, nor anyone else, anticipated a quick German victory in the west. The conventional military wisdom of the day saw something akin to 1918 taking place with neither side winning a quick victory. Churchill certainly believed this until he flew to Paris to meet with the French after becoming Prime Minister on May 10, 1940. Then he asked Gemelin where are the reserves and was astounded to hear that there were none.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by sogard:

E.B.'s posts are not new, unusual or outside the main thinking of WW II historians. Given the conventional wisdom at the time, the Nazi-Soviet pact in 1939 had benefits for both the Germans and Soviets. It is true that Stalin, nor anyone else, anticipated a quick German victory in the west. The conventional military wisdom of the day saw something akin to 1918 taking place with neither side winning a quick victory. Churchill certainly believed this until he flew to Paris to meet with the French after becoming Prime Minister on May 10, 1940. Then he asked Gemelin where are the reserves and was astounded to hear that there were none.

Sogard : In the first place, the idea of the "conventional wisdom" of either that period in history, or the "main thinking" of historians, is not entirely relevant. Look at what EB is trying to say : that Stalin was wise (and even "humane").

If there was ANY possibility of Germany winning a victory in the West, surely the wisdom of permitting even the roll of the dice was patently stupid, from an objective strategic view of Russian interests.

The alleged "wisdom" of Stalinist policies, both domestic and foreign, simply does not stand up to even a remotely objective analysis.

Stalin quashed the NEP (designed and implemented under Lenin) program in the 1920s, and concomittantly sent to the Gulag or executed most of the best economic minds in Soviet Russia at the time, Bukharin and others. At the time of the assault on the NEP, Russia was actually approaching pre-WWI production levels in nearly all areas, for the first time since the Bolshevik Revolution.

The subsequent economic crisis which obtained in the late 20s and early 30s was due almost entirely to Stalin's domestic policy, which was driven by the personal self interest of the Stalin clique. The Great Depression actually had very little impact on the Soviet Union because they did relatively little trade with the West in the first place.

In the environment of precipitously dropping agricultural and industrial output, Stalin did not relax punitive controls on the economy, much less re-institute the NEP or some other similar policy. No, instead Stalin increased punitive controls on the economy, virtually outlawing any concept of private property. Private garden plots, of no more than 1/4 acre, that were being grown by individual families in the countryside to keep themselves from starving, were torn up and outlawed, and millions of individuals were sent to the Gulag for this tiny attempt to keep their children from starving. They were called "Kulaks", subjected to a trial by mob, from which their was little hope of survival.

And, Stalin went even further. Punitive economic controls didn't seem to turn things around, so the only explanation must be (in the Stalinist view) sabotage by the West. By 1933, the Soviet Union was replete with paranoid mania in which neighbor accused neighbor of saying bad things about Stalin, and millions more were sent off to the Gulag or executed outright. It was in this period that most of the remaining Old Bolsheviks, who remembered something about Lenin's policies and approach (which, for all its ruthlessness, actually did encourage logical debate to some extent) were arrested, sent to prison for immediate or slow execution.

In the climate of 1934-1936 it is estimated that some 20 million people either died of starvation, were sent to prison where they either died or languished. The Soviet Union could not feed itself, and the policies of Stalin insured that any individual attempt on the part of people to prevent starvation (such as the growing of a few tomatos in their yards or the hunting of a deer in the local woods) was punishable by imprisonment or death, since it was "obviously" an attempt to undermine Bolshevism or the power of Stalin's clique.

Having failed to restore any semblance of rationality to economic life with this economy by coercion, Stalin began to suspect an even wider Western conspiracy to thwart Bolshevism. The Red Army was the prime suspect. Tens of thousands of officers were arrested by the NKVD, most never survived. There is a famous picture of Voroshilov at a Red Army conference in 1936, where he is surrounded by most of the leading minds of the Red Army of the time (most of whom had very innovative ideas about modern warfare), including Tukachevsky. Every one of the officers in that picture would not live to see the start of WW2, except the idiot Voroshilov.

Having weakened Russia to the point of prostration by 1939, Stalin felt the desperate need to somehow protect his country against real external enemies (instead of imaginary internal ones), such as Germany. Western nations were now recovering from the Depression, and one of them, Germany, was led by a man who had made no secret about his desire to crush Bolshevism and colonize Russia. This was something Stalin had to take seriously.

His response? A cowardly diplomatic manuver which fit right into German plans.

I'm fully aware of the backdoor negotiations that took place all through 1939, as Europe began the slow but inexhorable march towards a conflict that the European nations had largely brought on themselves by retributive policies towards Germany. Stalin even discussed his general strategic view at the time with an American who was sent there a little while later by Roosevelt in 1940, and the record of these meetings are one of the sources historians have to attempt to understand Stalin's moves which in retrospect appear to have played into the hands of Hitler.

But the Non-Aggression pact fails a logical analysis even if you factor in all of the assumptions of the time.

Logically, the only way the Germans could threaten the survival of the Soviet state was if Poland and France were eliminated and Germany had no serious rival for miltary power on the continent. The Non-Aggression Pact provided the *opportunity*, though far from a guarantee, that Germany could do just that. Without the Pact, there was NO risk to the Soviet Union's survival in a strategic sense. So, the question is : why take that risk?

Because Stalin was an illogical and flawed man, driven by paranoia and a very poor understanding of potentials and human motivation, interested primarily in the subordination of all Russians to his own person and skewed ideas about social and political organization. The Pact only makes sense to minds similarly limited.

If Stalin had perfect hindsight, the Pact makes no sense either. If he KNEW that Germany would defeat France, he would not have agreed to the Pact because it was the Pact that enabled Germany to concentrate all her forces on the French front. If he didn't know that Germany would defeat France, why allow her the opportunity at all?

It doesn't make any logical sense. It only makes sense to a paranoid psychotic.

Stalin's postwar policies fit in the exact same pattern. There were accusations of plot after plot against Stalin, the most notorious being the "Doctor's Plot". Tens of thousands of more people were sent to the Gulag. Stalin wanted Yugoslavia in the Warsaw Pact, and wanted every aspect of Yugoslavian domestic, economic, and military policy to follow the Soviet model. Even the Yugoslavs could see the stupidity of this, and bravely refused. Even the Chinese, who under Mao were equally willing to be unscrupulous and implement idiotic economic ideas, couldn't stand Stalin's unbridled craving for control, and wisely put some distance between themselves and Uncle Joe.

E.B.'s posts are straight out of history books written and published for Soviet elementary schools in the 1950s. No wait, that's not true. The Pact was suppressed history until the 80s. This great and wise move on the part of Comrade Stalin was so embarassingly stupid that it was erased from history by the Soviet Regime, until the period of Detente and, later, Peristroika. By the way, its not the only thing that Stalin did that was similarly "erased".

[ October 16, 2002, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Tony Reale:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dgaad:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tony Reale:

Where do you guys find the time to write all of this? Doesn't anyone work? When do you find time to even play the game?

Just wondering.

I award this post the "MOST RELEVANT QUESTION IN THIS THREAD" prize. Seriously.</font>

[John DiFool]

As it turns out, there is a thread currently in

the soc.history.what-if newsgroup entitled:

"Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion

of Russia", which discusses the book by the same

name (author: someone named Gorodetsky). Quote:

Gorodetsky, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University, shows that, while Stalin feared a German attack, he thought he could work out a traditional

balance-of-power arrangement with Germany that established recognized

spheres of influence. The reason Stalin succumbed to this delusion,

according to Gorodetsky, was that he distrusted Britain more than he

feared Hitler.

John DiFool

[ October 16, 2002, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]

[dgaad]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

As it turns out, there is a thread currently in

the soc.history.what-if newsgroup entitled:

"Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion

of Russia", which discusses the book by the same

name (author: someone named Gorodetsky). Quote:

Gorodetsky, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University, shows that, while Stalin feared a German attack, he thought he could work out a traditional

balance-of-power arrangement with Germany that established recognized

spheres of influence. The reason Stalin succumbed to this delusion,

according to Gorodetsky, was that he distrusted Britain more than he

feared Hitler.

John DiFool

John : love your name.

Would you try to work out a balance of power arrangement with someone who had made repeated public statements over a long period of time that indicated their main goal in life was to crush you and everything you represent and enslave or exterminate your people?

By the way, feel free to be me vicariously by posting anything I say here to that NG.

[ October 16, 2002, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[Jeff Heidman]

It is very simple. Stalin was no different than Hitler in his aims. He wanted to snatch up as much land and territory as possible. His deal with Hitler was made because eh thought that it was easy pickings.

If you ignore the fact that Hitler stated over and over, and WROTE A BOOK!!! about invading the USSR and enslaving most of it, it was a sweetheart deal for Uncle Joe. Germany does all the work and takes all the risk, Staling gets half of Poland, and the Baltic States. With Hitler busy dealing with the French and Brits, Stalin could finish up Finland, and then he and Hitler could hang out and swap stories about how stupid everyone else was to let them carve up Europe between them.

Bummer about Hitler hating his guts, eh?

Jeff Heidman