Historical Article at www.wargamer.com

[Potential Italian Player]

"The Russo-German War" by "Wild" Bill Wilder.

Part one:

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/russo_german_historical_part1/

Part two:

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/russo_german_historical_part2/

[ March 18, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Potential Italian Player ]

[Major Minor]

Great article! Just a suggestion, but you might want to run the spell-check or have someone proof it before posting the next one.

[Schoerner]

No, the usual vae victis propaganda:

Only two, also in this article repeated, but already proven wrong tales:

1. If the USA didn't help Stalin out, Germany would have won the war in the east. It's quite amusing, how the enormous amount of the land-and-lease deliveries are ignored.

2. Hitler didn't want to attack the USSSR at that time, but was forced to do so (due to the soviet troop concentrations on the eastern-border).

The conclusion, that Hitler didn't learn from history is just ridiculous: only very few politicians had the same historical knowledge (not a single one of the capitalistic party-politicians) and Hitler stated several times, that Barbarossa was the hardest decision of his life. Why, oh why, if the schoolbook-propaganda is right?

Following the propaganda, a crazy man was strangely able, to make Germany within 6 years to the world's leader in science, social standards and economics. This "crazy" man gave Germany the possibility to defeat even France within 6 weeks and forced the USA to use all it's ressources and cooperation with Communism to destroy the creation of a crazy man?

And following the primitive winner's propaganda, he was even crazy enough to start a war against the huge CCCP, didn't care if that meant a two frontier war (while every normal german politician knew much better than others what that meant, but strangely Hitler didn't care about, and even more strangely although there are hundreds of written down speeches, dialogues or monologues prooving he was extremely afraid of a second front) without any winter-uniforms and was believing the war can be won within weeks (and all the german generals were that crazy too, but strangely able to have unbelievable success on the battlefield - such crazy men with less knowledge than a schoolboy, fought the most successful campaigns and battles in history?), while every child that looks on a globus sees how ridiculous that is.

It's hard to understand, how intelligent people can believe such primitive and easily to expose propaganda, even more because there are authentic german and russian documents already available, showing how wrong this old, but always repeated tales are.

But before the winner's propaganda is critically questioned, even intelligent people prefer to believe in "crazy" men making history, no matter how ridiculous the propaganda is.

The two most important and basic books regarding to this problem:

The Prince, Macciavelli

Psychology of the Masses, Gustave Le Bon

[ March 18, 2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Potential Italian Player]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

The Prince, Macciavelli

Psychology of the Masses, Gustave Le Bon

Machiavelli.

[ March 18, 2003, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Potential Italian Player ]

[Sergei]

Hi Mum!

[scoop88]

In the interests of giving both sides of the story, I couldn't resist responding after reading some of the above items on this topic.

It is beyond me how anyone can defend the vast majority of Hitler's military decisions. As a politician and orator, he was a genius, albeit an evil one. As a strategist, he was an idiot. The proof:

1. Stopping the panzers at Dunkirk.

2. Failure to develop a plan to invade England until it was too late.

3. Failure to develop the Mediterranean front into a viable strategy to defeat Britain in late 1940/early 1941.

4. Declaring war on the United States when he was not obligated to do so. (In general, he was amazingly ignorant of the United States and its military potential.)

5. Failure to understand the importance that a navy plays in global strategy, as evidenced by Germany's failure to build a navy of any consequence before WWII.

6. Failure to understand the role of strategic bombing, as evidenced by Germany's failure to build a strategic bombing force in any numbers before and during WWII.

7. Failure to understand the role of advanced technology in his wartime strategy. (He ordered ME-262s to be used as bombers instead of fighters, and directed the V-1 and V-2 missiles at civilian rather than military targets -- imagine the havoc they could have caused had they been fired at the beachheads and vital ports the Allies to receive supplies for the Western Front during the last half of 1944!)

8. One-dimensional ground strategy starting in December 1941 -- "Stand and fight! No retreat!" It worked once during the winter of 1941-42 in Russia, came back to haunt him at Stalingrad and after.

Cheers!

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by scoop88:

1. Stopping the panzers at Dunkirk.

Cheers!

you know it's conventional wisdom that stopping the panzers outside dunkirk was a mistake... i believed that myself for a number of years until it dawned on me... what if the panzers had attacked... in overcast as it were without luftwaffe support?...

wouldn't the royal navy have wiped the panzers out with shore bombardment?

[JonS]

How, exactly, would the NGS have been controlled? The proceedures, techniques, and equipment weren't available till later AFAIK.

[Grisha]

A couple of points I'd like to make. One, von Seeckt of the Reichswehr was the man most responsible for developing and building the combined arms concept that was used to such devastating effect by the Nazi German army. Hitler had little to do with it, except to feed it more money. By the time Hitler came to power, this combined arms concept was thoroughly in place.

Two, German documents will attest to the sheer lack of intelligence conducted by the Nazi Germans to determine the fullest extent of Soviet military forces or the capabilities of Soviet production or equipment. While many reconnaissance aircraft flew over the USSR prior to Barbarossa, the Nazi Germans put little else into determining what they were getting into. In fact, the Nazi regime actually turned back intelligence from diplomatic sources that contested some military reports regarding Soviet production capabilities. No, Hitler truly wanted Russia as part of his old plan for lebensraum.

[ March 18, 2003, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[laxx]

regardless, I want to thanks "Wild" Bill Wilder for the document, this is a good overall perspective of the war at the eastern front. I wished I had read it when I first started playing CMBB.

cheers!

[Cos]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

But before the winner's propaganda is critically questioned, even intelligent people prefer to believe in "crazy" men making history, no matter how ridiculous the propaganda is.

Because alot of "crazy" men do make history. History is full of nutters (which isn't the same as being stupid) coming to power and just causing a mess of thing.

If Hilter was "forced" into attacking Russia then he was led blindly into the trap uncle Joe set for him then

[Sergei]

Originally posted by scoop88:

It is beyond me how anyone can defend the vast majority of Hitler's military decisions. As a politician and orator, he was a genius, albeit an evil one. As a strategist, he was an idiot.

I see him, like Stalin, as a hardened criminal who with those skills rose to power and who with those skills could trick the more formal and conventional opponents like Chamberlain and Daladier, who expected him to be just like them. As strategists, many statesmen suck compared to their generals. But not all statesmen sack generals just for disagreeing with idiotic orders or voicing their opinions.

2. Failure to develop a plan to invade England until it was too late.

I don't believe that Germans could have pulled that off in 1940 in any case. Afterwards UK continued to be a nuisance, but from 1940 point of view, it was reasonable to believe that Britain would have surrendered. After all, Germans had done what they didn't in 1914: taken Paris, driven the Brits across the Channel, and avoided having two fronts. Invading Britain was just too risky.

4. Declaring war on the United States when he was not obligated to do so. (In general, he was amazingly ignorant of the United States and its military potential.)

I fully agree. Hitler just didn't think USA was going to be a major opponent (just like USSR couldn't be a major opponent to him earlier), as it represented to him all that he despised in the Weimar republic. Besides, USA was already supplying UK and USSR to some extent, and it now had Japan to worry about...

5. Failure to understand the importance that a navy plays in global strategy, as evidenced by Germany's failure to build a navy of any consequence before WWII.

But if you consider how big Kriegsmarine was in WWI and how it proved to be just useless yet super-expensive toys, it doesn't come as a surprise. After all, he won in 1939 and 1940 without one. Neither did he need it against Soviet Union.

Submarines became useful, though. But I don't think Hitler or his staff were, at any point, planning to have a years-long, expensive war of annihilation. The slowness of going to war economy is a sign of this. German high command, with Hitler, wanted quick, decisive wars. This happened in Poland, in Norway, in France and in the Balkans (although Crete didn't turn out to be much of a success).

Hitler just couldn't see how things would spin out of control: Britain didn't make a peace when it was supposed to. Soviets weren't crushed in few months like expected. And United States, weren't they supposed to be just a bunch of degenerate and corrupt democrats, Jews and Negroes, many of whom were against military involvement in Europe and unwilling to support USSR? Besides, Imperial Japanese Army was mightier.

But of course, neither did Daladier nor Chamberlain nor Stalin nor Roosevelt know in 1939, what was to come. They, or namely Stalin and Roosevelt, just had the means to survive a prolonged war.

6. Failure to understand the role of strategic bombing, as evidenced by Germany's failure to build a strategic bombing force in any numbers before and during WWII.

But no-one had a strategic bombing force before WWII. And there is disagreement about how effective the Allied strategic bombardments were compared to the effect if those resources were used by the armies.

[Sergei]

Time to feed the troll:

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Following the propaganda, a crazy man was strangely able, to make Germany within 6 years to the world's leader in science, social standards and economics.

World leader? I guess all the political prisoners, torture, racial discrimination etc. are not accounted for in social standards. And who gives a **** about all the scientists who left the country... yeah, like those guys who later built the A-bomb. And I really have never heard of any significant German economists (unless Karl Marx is considered as one).

[Mikko H.]

Posted by Schoerner:

2. Hitler didn't want to attack the USSSR at that time, but was forced to do so (due to the soviet troop concentrations on the eastern-border).

This is absolute bollocks. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union because he wanted to conquer 'living space'. Whether the Red Army was concentrated on the German border or not, didn't concern the German leadership the least -- Russkies were just subhumans who could not match Hitler's Aryan legions no matter what.

The German archives have for more than 50 years been a subject of intensive research. Not a shred of evidence has ever been found to suggest that Germans were afraid of a Soviet invasion in 1941. Quite the contrary. The German planning for the Barbarossa is well documented. Hitler had always wanted to subjugate the Slavs, and ultimately to enslave or exterminate them. Barbarossa was launched to fulfill this perverse dream.

[Other Means]

and for perhaps the first time, the losers wrote the history.

the USSR became the new threat, therefore german history & views where what became the established view in the west.

and even with that there was a catalogue of bad decisions and appalling behaviour.

[ March 19, 2003, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Other Means ]

[wings7]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

1. If the USA didn't help Stalin out, Germany would have won the war in the east. It's quite amusing, how the enormous amount of the land-and-lease deliveries are ignored.

2. Hitler didn't want to attack the USSSR at that time, but was forced to do so (due to the soviet troop concentrations on the eastern-border).

The conclusion, that Hitler didn't learn from history is just ridiculous: only very few politicians had the same historical knowledge (not a single one of the capitalistic party-politicians) and Hitler stated several times, that Barbarossa was the hardest decision of his life. Why, oh why, if the schoolbook-propaganda is right?

1. Most people that play CM know and realize the importance of lend lease.

2. Read "Mein Kampf", Hitler had every intention of invading Russia...for "living space."

[scoop88]

Dear Sergei:

Thanks for your comments. Just to explain a little further:

2. Failure to develop a plan to invade England until it was too late

It would seem to me that the Germans, once it was clear that France was going to fall --and that was obvious 2-3 weeks after the start of the German offensive in the West in May 1940 -- would have started planning an invasion. In reality, the planning didn't start in earnest until later that summer. By then, it was too late because of the bad weather that traditionally hits the English Channel in October. As a self-proclaimed military genius, Hitler should have had the foresight to have contingency planning for an invasion under way much sooner.

Whether an invasion would have worked is very questionable because the Germans didn't have the navy or the landing craft to support it. At a minimum, they needed air superiority, which Goering failed to achieve, at least in part because, again, the Nazi leadership were poor strategic thinkers. Hitler switched the air campaign's focus away from airfields and aircraft factories in Britain to terror bombing of cities, with the result that the RAF was able to recover sufficiently from its losses in late August and early September to keep control of the air.

5. Failure to understand the importance that a navy plays in global strategy, as evidenced by Germany's failure to build a navy of any consequence before WWII.

Your points are well-taken. As you wrote, the Germans misused the large surface navy they had in World War I. It just seems to me that Hitler should have put more resources into building subs during Germany's rearmament in the late 1930s. When the war started, the Germans had a relatively small submarine force, even though submarine warfare against England was an important strategic weapon.

6. Failure to understand the role of strategic bombing, as evidenced by Germany's failure to build a strategic bombing force in any numbers before and during WWII.

The U.S. and Britain had heavy bombers already in service when the war started, and then had the strategic sense to build them in large numbers during the war. The Germans had four-engine bombers of sorts (the FW Condor), but never built them in any numbers. While the effect of strategic bombing on Germany's manufacturing facilities is debatable, and the fire-bombing of German cities was criminal, I think the impact on Germany's transportation system alone justified the worth of strategic bombing. A strategic bombing force directed at resources, manufacturing, transportation and port facilities in England, Russia, and the Mediterranean (Suez Canal, Malta, Gibraltar) might have paid big dividends for Hitler. Remember, Hitler kept his factories going by using slave labor to disperse them or move them underground, then keep them running. England might not have had the manpower to do that.

In retrospect, it's fortunate for the rest of the world that Hitler wasn't a better strategist.

Enjoyed reading your comments and look forward to your other posts on this and other topics on the Battlefront forum!

[tracer]

I thought it was a very good article,seen some points I hacn't realized,thanks. and as far as Hitler goes,between him or Stalin,I think they are both burning in hell. and far as a military genius, my vote goes to Rommel

[Schoerner]

Summing up, some of the "historicans" in here, refer to a book, written from an oppositional politician in jail, as historical proove. Quite strange logic and really excellent evidences.

Once again, the well known winner's propaganda is repeated to death instead of using the own brain.

Before someone of the propaganda believing hobby-historicans believes into such nonsense, he should be able, especially as CM-wargamer, to answer following two simple questions:

If the winner's propaganda is right,

1. how can it be explained, that over 100 soviet divisions were concentrated on the german border?

2. how was it possible to destroy 2000 soviet fighters placed that close to the german border, within the first 24 hours?

BTW: TODAY we are witnesses of another criminal USrael attack-war.

[Hat Trick]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Snipped:

"BTW: TODAY we are witnesses of another criminal USrael attack-war. "

Schoernoer, you're showing your true colors again. As far as I know Israel is not involved in the attack, and if they do get involved, in all likelihood it will be because of an attack by Iraq. I'd ask why you think Israel is part of this war, but I'm pretty sure I know what you would answer.

[scoop88]

Dear Battlefront:

Suggest locking this thread up real fast before things get ugly.

[Battlefront.com]

Schoerner,

I think I speak for EVERYBODY on this Forum when I say that your thinly (VERY THINLY) held neo-Nazi, apologist views are not welcome here. You can whine and complain all you want about being persecuted for "speaking the truth", but anybody with half a brain knows otherwise.

In short, I am going to do something for you that your heros, like the real Schoerner, would never do... give you a warning and let you determine your fate. If you want to retain your posting priveledges here, pretend you are someone else. You know, someone who isn't a brainwashed, right wing, hate mongor apologist who has as much understanding of what went on with the Third Reich as my 7 year old cat Klaus.

And also unlike your namesake, if you should choose to disregard my warning I can't hang you from a treelimb with a sign around your neck. All I can do is ban you.

Steve

[Franko]

You know, someone who isn't a brainwashed, right wing, hate mongor apologist who has as much understanding of what went on with the Third Reich as my 7 year old cat Klaus.

Steve [/QB]

Hey..be nice to Klaus.

F

[Ant]

1. how can it be explained, that over 100 soviet divisions were concentrated on the german border?

2. how was it possible to destroy 2000 soviet fighters placed that close to the german border, within the first 24 hours?

Because the soviets believed in trying to defend their borders just like everybody else did

When I first read about this theory of the pre-emptive German strike on a red army that was poised to attack anyway I was quite intrigued. I like different perspectives on history. It's true that the victors write the history books and you sometimes need to read a lot of stuff to try and get past the 'propaganda' However, after poking around in libraries and reading the theories and counter theories on this I deduced (and this is only my opinion on what I've read about it) That the Soviets may well have intended to attack Germany at some point, but they weren't ready to do so for at least a further year or more. Also the German attack on the Soviet Union had nothing to do with a pre-empive 'defensive attack' As has been mentioned Hitler always planned to use Russia for 'Lebensraum'(sp?) and the German attack was nothing less than an agressive invasion, nothing to do with defence at all.

[Schoerner]

Why that agressive and once again personal attacks instead of facts?

I only asked two simple questions.

Why no answers to the topic anymore?

@Ant:

"Because the soviets believed in trying to defend their borders just like everybody else did."

Ofcourse they believed that. Like the germans believed that.

Like the alliied soldiers in Iraq still believe that.

But that's not the problem.

The problem is, that the most important facts for conclusions are still ignored, to keep the propaganda-picture of the losers alive.

This is what i mean: everybody believes the extremely primitive propaganda-crap instead of using the own brain and counting 1+1 together with the given, from all sides undoubted facts.

As a wargamer everyone should know, what's the difference between classical attack constellations and how defensive positions need to look like (especially with 100+ divisions in such a huge country).

[ March 21, 2003, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]