Stalin won't give up!

[Friendly Fire]

Dear Furher,

Eastern Theater Report.

The situation both excellent and frustrating.

All three Russian supply centers are captured. Russian assets are now reduced to:

- all cities and oil fields south of (but not including) Rostov and Stalingrad

- the two mines in the Urals (the defenders have no supplies and if necessary we can crush them in short order)

- The Romanian capital

- perhaps 15 ground units hiding here and there

We cannot find Stalin, or for that matter any commander. No one will sign a surrender order!

I know you require my troops and air fleets to turn the tide in the Western Theater. What are your orders Herr Furher? What is the fastest way to put an end to the senseless resistance of these stupid communists in order to secure our ultimate victory?

Field Marshall Kesselring

Vologda USSR

August 1943

note; intention of this posting is to solicit advice on this actual game situation. In order to knock out Russia what should Axis focus on? Dropping Russian production? Killing units? IF so, does it what matter kind of units?

[ June 04, 2005, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Friendly Fire ]

[JerseyJohn]

This guy had a similar problem!

[Liam]

From what I have heard of this little part of history, Nappy never got what he wanted, "A Grand Battle!"

While Hitler had plenty of action all the way to the outskirts of the 3 Major supply sources of the USSR and had a good chance to take at least 1 of them pre-Winter of '41.... Now what impact that may have had on the War is undetermined and holding Moscow during the Winter would've probably been the Battle of the Century as the Germans would've probably lost or payed dearly to keep it and not been worth it.. Psychologically this would've been a major blow however and the true importance of Moscow is still unknown as it was never taken and noone will ever know..

Boneparte could've taken all of Russia if he could've survived the cold, lack of supplies, lack of deserters....by 1941 Cold wasn't the same factor it was before, as men travelled faster in Iron Beasts or did they really? Supplies were driven to the front, equipment was far better for cold vs a century and few decades previously.. just not utilized properly. German Arrogance. perhaps french Arrogance too, perhaps they could've taken everything but Moscow and instead of forcing a peace with the Tzar just dominated the Outskirts of his Domain never forcing a true 'do or die' type situation.

If Hitler hadn't been flirting around in Greece and Crete and just executed Il Duce with his first Screw Up in N.Africa perhaps Fascism would've reigned supreme with a late Spring Offensive in 1941

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Essentially that's true.

Except for the Battle of Borodino during the late summer of 1812.

The Russian general, Katuzov, made a determined -- though not suicidal -- stand on the Moskva River at the road juncture town near Moscow that the battis named for.

The fighting went on for three days and in the end both armies were left with very heavy losses but little in the way of a decisive result. The Russians slipped away and the French (with Austrians, Prussians, Poles, Italians and others) marched on to Moscow, where Napoleon assumed the Russians would offer peace terms.

All in all, Napoleon entered Russia with approximately 500,000 troops. In the end about 5,000 Frenchmen actually made it home. It's estimated that about a third of his army deserted along the way, returning to Berlin and Vienna to fight him in 1813 and 14.

I wonder what the 1941 equivalent of 500,000 troops in 1812 would be? Probably around 4-5,000,000 !!

But naturally, I agree with you, it was a totally different sort of campaign and a different kind of warfare.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam Part II

Sorry, I reread your post and have some things to add.

Originally, Napoleon planned to take Russia in a two year campaign. He was aware of the Russian winter and also of the Swedish King Charles debacle on the steps.

-- During the first year he planned to halt with a line of Riga-Smolensk-Kiev to secure his line of supply and give his army (armies, actually) a secure winter camp.

-- Year two he planned to take St Petersburg and Moscow and force a peace treaty.

But, as you said, he was lured in by the lack of oppositiong till he reached the outskirts of Moscow.

-- Regarding Hitler. I'm not sure he could have avoided the Mediteranean entanglements after Mussolini's ill-advised fiasco in Greece.

The funny part is, even after all Mussolini's half baked disasters, Hitler still cherished his friendship. You can see that in the film footage of their last meeting, the day the conspirators nearly killed him. He meets Mussolini at the train station and it's just like old times.

[Liam]

Insightful John, two very ambitious arrogant men who failed to do what was very possible

I think Hitler had a better chance considering the Russians were disorganized ramble in comparison with the Wermacht and in 1812 the Russians were actually a formidable foe with good leaders<well decent ones>

Time was on the Russians side in '41 as it was the 19th century

and time wasn't on the aggressors side, now adays none of this really matters with Nukes but odd wouldn't it be if to this day we were without nuclear technology? Russia would still be a very hard to steppe to step across

The Scandanavians managed to take out the Reds so did the Crimeans but these peoples did it in a different fashion and different age when the nation was still virgining

[Liam]

Oh and on behalf the Swedes, I'm not sure on what actually occurred there, I do know great tensions and war but I don't even know how they prevailed against the Reds did they win? I never read that portion of history. I know Sweden had their 1700s hayday but that's about it and about a war between them and Mother Russia

[JerseyJohn]

Liam,

This is reminicscent of that thread you started a couple of years back that went from a routine SC topic to Ancient history, the Crusades, the Age of Exploration, World Wars I & II and wound up with Dr Strangelove! I think that was the best thread this forum ever had.

Charles XII is a very interesting historical figure. When he came to the thrown Sweden was among the most powerful nations in Europe. Russia, under Peter the Great was his nearest rival. Peter wanted to act in cooperation with him in the Baltic, but Charles felt the population of Sweden (+Norway) would be too small for future greatness, so he decided instead to conquer Russia! :confused:

His early wars, fought mainly in the Baltic against Denmark and Poland were often brilliant triumphs which was also true of his campaigns against Peter in the Baltic States. From there he moved south to try and take the Ukraine and had his undoing at the Battle of Plotowa, late 17th Century. Instead of returning to Sweden after that disasterous defeat he went to Turkey in an attempt to interest the Ottomans in more wars against the Russians (they were already defeated in the Crimea).

Eventually the sultan literally sent him packing back to his homeland. In the course of his reign he gave Sweden a lot of power and greatness and, in the end, lost all of it.

Napoleon considered him a great tactician but strategically little more than an inept adventurer. The funny part is, in the end he wound up being even worse off than Charles.

The Russians did have some great generals around the time of the Napoleonic wars. Suvorov and Kutuzov among others, though most of their campaigns, mainly against the Turks, have been pretty much forgotten.

A little before that the American sea captain, John Paul Jones, served as admiral of Catherine the Great's Black Sea Fleet. He died in Russia and nobody knew what became of his corpse till a century or so later someone at Anapollis opened a barrel with an identifying plate written in Russian. It contained his pickled body! Up till then it served as an odd seat on a winding stairway. He was a hero in Russia as well as America.

The Russian soldiers of that era were known for the same virtues as the troops that fought for the Soviets, perseverence, doggedness, good fighting ability and a general disregard for their own lives.

I basically feel the same as what said regarding the relative chances of Napoleon and Hitler to succeed in conquering Russia. It had to have been much harder for Napoleon. I think he could have easily conquered part of it and held, but he was overly ambitious, meglomaniacal by 1812. He already showed that when he invaded his own loyal ally, Spain, a few years earlier for no reason other than a disire to place his brother on it's thrown. Absolute insanity. In the end that was as much a mistake as his fiasco in Russia.

Of all the dictators of the WWII era, I think Mussolini was the most sensible and down to earth. He was a terrible war leader, but he wasn't looking for WWII, it was Hitler who wanted that one. Mussolini already had what he wanted, an African empire and bragging rights. If it hadn't been for WWII, he'd have lived to a ripe old age while they were finding oil in Libya and I'm sure history books today would see him a lot differently. His mistake was being suckered into Hitler's hallucination. As late as early 1940 he could have chosen to stay neutral with promises of favored trade status from the British. Instead, he went for a cheap shot and tried to grab a few prizes in a war he assumed Germany had already won.

Naturally, the smartest of the lot was Franco, who played all sides and not only got his cake but was able to eat it too.

I have a feeling this is going to turn into a thread about German-Soviet War 1941-45. Which would be a welcome change, we haven't anything like that in ages.

[Kuniworth]

Jeresyjohn

Regarding Charles XII;

Sweden did not go on the offensive but was attacked 1700 simultaneously by three major powers; Denmark, Russia and Sachsen-Poland. An alliance to crush Swedens dominance in the baltic.

- Norway was not a part of Sweden at this time. However Finland was and remained Swedish until lost to Russia in 1809.

- Peter the Great main purpose of the campaign was to establish russia as a dominant power in the baltic. Estonia and Latvia was at this time a part of the Swedish reich.

- Swedes swung south towards the Ukraine, not to conquer it but to come closer to allied groups of cossacks. Defence near Moscow was to strong.

- The big battle in Ukraine is the battle of Poltava, 28th of june 1709, not late 17th century. Swedes lost outnumbered 1:6 and lost badly. Whole Swedish army surrendered at Perevolotjna close by after that.

- Funny detail, Peter the great founded St Petersburg(Leningrad) 1703, on for the moment captured swedish soil when the war was far from decided. In 1703, Denmark was knocked out of the war and Poland in problem. Daring move by Peter.

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni,

Thanks for details -- I was hoping you'd write something like that because that period is (obviously) a weakness of mine.

Yes, Poltava, is one of the key battles of history. It was really the second battle, as I understand it. Charles was supposed to have linked with a fresh column that contained artillery he was counting on but it was destroyed before it reached him and the result was Poltava.

In the battle, there was no doubt that the Swedish infantry was probably the most elite in Europe. According to Edward Creasy's book, Fifteen Decisive Battles, Charles plan was to have his infantry charge through the Russian lines and come out the other side. This was carried out incorrectly by his officers, who attacked individual Russian formations instead of passing them.

I knew the building of St Petersburg had something to do with it but didn't realize that was the actual cause of the war. It makes sense, though, as Peter was suddenly becoming a rival on the Baltic.

What I didn't know was Sweden's defensive situation in the war vs Denmark, Poland and Russia in 1700.

It was also my understanding that most of the conflicting situation was a carryover from the reign of his father, Charles XI.

Anyway, glad to have been wrong, your post was very informative and interesting.

[Friendly Fire]

thread hijackers!

no orders for Kesselring!

see post 1.

[JerseyJohn]

Friendly Fire

This has gone way past the point of hijacking!

For my part in this crime I apologize but it isn't sincere because I've enjoyed all of this too much.

-- Sorry, I didn't realize it was part of an AAR.

If I might make a suggestion without having you throw something at me, I'd suggest you copy the first post (without deleting it, of course) to a new Thread with a statement that it's an AAR, leaving this one for us Body Snatchers to continue posting in. Otherwise I fear Kesselring will soon end up meeting Montezuma.

Anyway, looking at this thing as a discussion, you've done a great job of setting the table and getting it rolling.

-- I promise not to intrude in your AAR should you choose to start a new one. And I honestly am sorry for having written so much in this one, I honestly thought you intended the thread as a sort of open discussion.

-- -- Yes, that's a bald-faced lie!

But I do promise to stay out of the new one if you take that route.

[hellraiser]

Russia is protected by its immense territory ...

And every conqueror wants to win wars fast ... not working against Russia

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Yes, Poltava, is one of the key battles of history. It was really the second battle, as I understand it. Charles was supposed to have linked with a fresh column that contained artillery he was counting on but it was destroyed before it reached him and the result was Poltava.

In the battle, there was no doubt that the Swedish infantry was probably the most elite in Europe. According to Edward Creasy's book, Fifteen Decisive Battles, Charles plan was to have his infantry charge through the Russian lines and come out the other side. This was carried out incorrectly by his officers, who attacked individual Russian formations instead of passing them.

I knew the building of St Petersburg had something to do with it but didn't realize that was the actual cause of the war. It makes sense, though, as Peter was suddenly becoming a rival on the Baltic.

What I didn't know was Sweden's defensive situation in the war vs Denmark, Poland and Russia in 1700.

It was also my understanding that most of the conflicting situation was a carryover from the reign of his father, Charles XI.

Anyway, glad to have been wrong, your post was very informative and interesting.

There is some things to add here.

- First of all the war was a carryover going back to the dominance over the baltic Sweden won in the thiry years war and expanded during mid 17th century. Charles XI did beat the the offensive danes in the bloody battle of Lund in the 1670s but otherwise during his reign the swedish army was developed into a highly professional army, arguably the best in Europe. And this is not something true just about the infantry but cavalry in particular. The army was very offensive, made for charging the enemy. However this caused trouble when facing massed artillery which the russians started to use. Swedish artillery never was a big factor within the swedish army. Peter the great massed 100 guns at Poltava, the swedes never was near massing that figures.

- Buildin St Petersbrg was not the aim of Russias attack but something Peter the Great began doing during the war. The main reason for the war was to capture finnish and estonian territory and gain access to the baltic.

- The battle of Poltava; this battle consists of two parts and Im not sure which part the book is referring to. What happened was that Charles XII tried to force the russians into a decisive battle by marching from the siege-trenches outside Poltava to the russian camp. During this march the swedish army had to pass russian fortificationsand got caught up in bloody assaults with a high loss of life. When they had passed by those fortifications the cavalry and some infantry battallions got out of order and did not participate in the assault on the russian line. So 4,000 swedes without proper cavalry support stormed 26,000 russians with 100 guns massed and almost got away with it. Reason was in those days the defender or attacker usually fled when charged with baionettes, seldom both sides stood their ground and cut the other to pieces. So they did not want to charge right through but just drive them off. This almost succeeded and the swedish captured some russian guns. It is not so much that they got caught up attacking enemy formations but more that both swedish wings were much shorther than the russian line and therefore stretched their forces to not be outflanked. As a result on the central-left this meant a gap was created which the russian exploited with their superior numbers and meant the whole swedish left wing broke down, thus creating a route of the entire army.

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni,

Thanks, this puts a lot more of it into perspective.

-- The overalll situation, then, dates back to the days of Gustavus Adolphus, unless I've still got it wrong.

My earlier view, which I know now was in error, was that Peter and Charles XII had a parting of the ways when Peter began building St Petersburg, which I thought was started during a time of peace. I didn't realize that the land he was doing it on would have been considered Swedish.

Yes, I agree about the Swedish army of that age; if it hadn't been the best in Europe it would have stood little chance against the numerous foes it had to face. The Russians in the Napoleonic era were very heavy on artillery. Borodino clearly prove this fact. It apparently stems back to at least the time of Peter the Great. I didn't realize Sweden was light on that arm but it makes perfect sense to me now.

Thanks for explaing further the battlefield tactics employed in the early 18th Century. Now I'll need to read Creasy's account again, last time was around 1970. I've picked up a new version of that book expaned to Twenty Decisive Battles of the World with updated chapters (Vic,sburg, Sadowa, First Marne, Midway and Stalingrad) along with suplimentary material added by Lt Colonel Joseph B. Mitchell, building upon Creasy's much earlier text.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

-- The overalll situation, then, dates back to the days of Gustavus Adolphus, unless I've still got it wrong.

This is correct

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

My earlier view, which I know now was in error, was that Peter and Charles XII had a parting of the ways when Peter began building St Petersburg, which I thought was started during a time of peace. I didn't realize that the land he was doing it on would have been considered Swedish.

It was founded on a captured swedish fort called Nienchanz. Location is a result of Peter's ambition to create a capital that could "connect" Russia to the west and the baltic sea. Plus it was here the saint Alexander Nevsky defeated the swedes and saved Novgorod in 1240. St Petersburg became the capital of Russia in 1712 which is incredible as the peace with Sweden was concluded as late as 1721 in Nystad.

Yes, I agree about the Swedish army of that age; if it hadn't been the best in Europe it would have stood little chance against the numerous foes it had to face. The Russians in the Napoleonic era were very heavy on artillery. Borodino clearly prove this fact. It apparently stems back to at least the time of Peter the Great. I didn't realize Sweden was light on that arm but it makes perfect sense to me now.

Sweden was not worse off on artillery than anyone else. But it was not adapted to play a key role in offense. Add to that the lack of resources for a very small country like Sweden and there is no chance one can take on Russia as stakes and armies gets bigger over the centuries.

[Friendly Fire]

Hi guys, I wasn't posting an AAR, but it is an actual game situation that I am seeking advice on. Usually when I take all three supply centers Russia folds shortly after. But in this case I am getting hammered by the US and UK and I need to find the fastest way to finish of the bear.

never mind, I will just keep all my units in the east and kill anything red...

thx

FF

[JerseyJohn]

Friendly,

I'm not one of the better players but I've generally seen the USSR surrender when the Axis had Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and all the Ural centers. There may well be specific situations where that doesn't happen, but I'm not an expert on the subject. No doubt Terif or one of the other top players would know for certain.

Kuni,

I don't think they teach any of that in United States schools but they should. It goes a long way to explaining a lot of modern European history.

After reading what you've said, it seems that Peter might have done very well to forget about the Baltic and concentrate on reaching the Mediteranean. He could apparently have worked out a trade agreement with the Swedes that would have freed Russia to concentrate on the Ottomans, which I'm sure would have left him totally free of European entanglements.

Sweden could no doubt have handled Denmark and possibly emerged as a much more powerful nation later on.

Getting back to the original discussion on Napoleon and what you said earlier about Russia having grabbed Finland in 1809.

Considering that Napoleon placed one of his marshals, Bernadotte, into the Swedish royal family by marriage, it shows how clumsily he was handling things that instead of getting the Swedes on his side against Russia in 1812 he actually drove them in the opposite camp with Bernadotte leading the Swedish troops that helped seal France's fate at the Battle of Leipzig.

Seems this thing did pretty well for a hijacked thread.

[Kuniworth]

Well Napoleon did not place Bernadotte on the throne, Sweden regarded France very high and lacked a predecessor and went looking for a king more or less. But Napoleon supported Bernadotte's election campaign and offered the swedish state to forget about debts to the french if he was elected. The swedish parliament had to chose between two candidates and chose the french commander.

Before this however Sweden fought against Napoleon before 1813 because the swedish king Gustav IV Adolf viewed Napoleon as the Devil reincarnated. That led to swedish disasters early on(1806) but meant that Sweden was not to participate in joing France in their campaigns. Further more Alexander and Napoleons continental system was a problem for Sweden as they supported the british. And in a way was used as a provocation by Russia to seize Finland, but the real aim of the attack was to divide Europe with Bonaparte as they had agreed upon in Tilsit.

You know after battle of Leipzig 1813 Bernadotte wanted to crush and incorporate Denmark into the swedish kingdom. By different reasons this did not work but Sweden however annexed Norway which at that time was a part of Denmark! So we lost Finland but gained Norway instead in 1814, talk about crazy politics! Well but Sweden released Norway in 1905 as the norweigans wanted independence and nationalism was flourishing high there. I think one of the reason Norway fought on after the nazi-attack 1940 was it's history of occupation, nationalism is strong and this is probably one of the reason why they still have not joined the European union.

Interesting detail is this. The nobel peace prize is announced in Oslo, this prize was given to Norway by the swedish nobel-committe as a symbol of friendship between the to states.

[ June 05, 2005, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[imported_Rannug]

Napoleon didn't place Bernadotte into becoming Swedish king. Russia attacked Sweden because Sweden refused to join into Napoleons trade embargo on the UK. At the time(1809) France and Russia was allied and Napoleon gave the OK to Russia to attack Sweden. The loss of Finland caused a revolt against Gustav IV Adolf and Sweden got a new king Karl XIII but he was old and had no children. So one had to find a king to be....first they picked a danish prince but he fell off a horse and died. In Europe politics had changed so now France and Russia was no longer allied. The next candidate to be king was Bernadotte, Sweden thought that a french general as king could help to form an pact with France against Russia so Finland could be retaken. Good Idea but before things was set up for a war Napoleon attacked Russia and lost. So Bernadotte who didn't like Napoleon very much formed a pact with Russia against France and Denmark. The idea was to accept the loss of Finland but to get Norway insteed. Norway became Swedish 1814 but to avoid bad feelings with Norway that wanted to be independent, a union was formed that lasted to 1905. Norway has been a free country for 100 years now! Well not 1941-45 as you all know...

[ June 05, 2005, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: Rannug ]

[jon_j_rambo]

All of these European nations became insignificant way back when Thomas Jefferson & a few of his friends decided to build a better country.

[imported_Rannug]

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni and Rannug,

I can't exaggerate how much I'm enjoying these conversations about Sweden's role in history.

I agree with what Kuni said, that whole part about consoling for the loss of Finland by absorbing Norway really is "Crazy Politics!"

A couple of years ago I accidentally referred to Kuni as a Dane and he responded with something about how he'd rather be something unmentionable than called Danish. At the time I thought it was funny but didn't understand it in the context it now has after hearing about all the wars the two countries had.

Needless to say I didn't know the details of Bernadotte's move to Swedish Royalty and it's much more interesting the way you two explained it. I did know that it didn't cooperate in the Continental System and that Bernadotte didn't like Napoleon, but the rest was blurry.

Seeing it the way you've described the whole thing makes what happened in 1812 much more understandable.

History would have been a lot different if Napoleon had patched things up with Sweden and formed an alliance where he invaded Russia with Swedish help in the Baltic where it would have regained Finland and France, instead of trecking inland, moved along the coast and took St. Petersburg first, making Moscow an objective for the second year (along with Minsk and Smolensk). Except, of course, by 1812 Napoleon had become too meglomanaic to think in those terms. Gustav IV Adolf was right, he really was "The Devil Incarnate!"

And that really is an interesting detail about the Nobel Prize arrangment between Sweden and Norway.

This has been an unexpectedly great thread. It's too bad we don't have more like it these days.