b!tching and moaning about grand strategy

[greeny]

Isn't grand strategy the Politburo's job? i.e. we decide WHAT needs to be done at the Grand Strategic level, and then STAVKA decide HOW they're going to do it (at the Operational and Tactical level).

Foe example we, the Politburo might decide that it is in our strategic interest to take Sweden, or make a concentrated narrow blitz to Berlin, or to advance on a broad front all at once. And then STAVKA decides what operations need to be made to achieve it.

Think of it as George W. Bush deciding to invade Afghanistan/Iraq and WHAT the Armed Forces are meant to achieve, and then it’s up to the Generals to work out plans on HOW to actually do it.

[Henrik]

If you order us to "make a concentrated narrow blitz into Berlin" wouldn't that be a "How to" thing though, something which you say should be up to the stavka?

[Bossy20000]

I don't agree comrade Henrikov, because it is a strategic choice. All tactical matters should be dealt with in STAVKA, the strategic matters are for the Politburo. This doesn't mean the politburo won't consult the Marshal or his front commanders, it just means that the Politburo takes the final decision in strategic matters. Afterwards, it's up to STAVKA to find a way to do what has been decided.

I thought this is what we decided when the Politburo-idea was being considered?

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Henrik
If you order us to "make a concentrated narrow blitz into Berlin" wouldn't that be a "How to" thing though, something which you say should be up to the stavka?

Here is an example:

The "What" would be: A push to Berlin and the Ploesti Oil Feilds."

The "How" would be:

Southern Fronts: During Winter 1943 Shaka will take Kiev, etc, etc until he can move on Ploesti from the north, and Figu will take Odessa, Bucharest, etc etc etc etc, until he can attack the Ploesti area from the south.

Politburo discusses the what in general terms. The Stavka discusses the who, where when and how in Stavka.

All Im talking about is the Strategic Objectives and essentially we will all decide that because we will open a discussion and decide upon it, All comments will be welcome. But we are responsible for making sure the discussion happens and then we will issue our "Grand Strategy".

[Dr. Nick]

STAVKA does the tactical level. Politburo does grand strategy. We set 'quotas' for the army to liberate terrain.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Bossy20000
I don't agree comrade Henrikov, because it is a strategic choice. All tactical matters should be dealt with in STAVKA, the strategic matters are for the Politburo. This doesn't mean the politburo won't consult the Marshal or his front commanders, it just means that the Politburo takes the final decision in strategic matters. Afterwards, it's up to STAVKA to find a way to do what has been decided.

I thought this is what we decided when the Politburo-idea was being considered?

Apperently you've changed your mind recently.

Origianlly posted by Bossy20000
I'm not on Stavka, but I suggest we start discusing our strategy for next winter. If we know what we want to do, we can put all assets in position in time, and hit the Germans on every front and push them back. I ask comrade Marshal to correct me, or add things, but I think we best do this by placing objectives for every front, and discussing how we will do things.

For example: Attacking Galati, from Sevastopel. What will this need, when could we do it, what needs to be done first, what does it give to us, what to do when we take the city, etc We should discuss these things well in advance, so we won't encounter surprises when we actually do it !!

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=2034800#post2034800

Not to mention the definition of STAVKA as written in it's thread:

STAVKA Is the Council of Front Commanders chaired by the Marshal and discusses matters of Grand Strategy involving matters concerning more than one front, reinforcement priorities and offensives.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=2029359#post2029359

The Marshal suggests that the arm chair quarterbacks in the Politburo stick to their "what if?" questions and let the Military decide upon Military matters.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by conmcb25


Here is an example:

The "What" would be: A push to Berlin and the Ploesti Oil Feilds."

Funny, I just did a poll about Grand Strategy a few days ago, I don't remember a hue and cry about me usurping from the Politburo

Politburo discusses the what in general terms. The Stavka discusses the who, where when and how in Stavka.

No.

All Im talking about is the Strategic Objectives and essentially we will all decide that because we will open a discussion and decide upon it, All comments will be welcome. But we are responsible for making sure the discussion happens and then we will issue our "Grand Strategy".

You're grasping for power, and I won't stand for it.


Oleg Sorokin, Marshal of the Soviet Union

[conmcb25]

H, I dont think we are grasping for power. Unfortunately Im kind of busy today and cant do an aim conversation.

All Im saying is we discuss grand strategy which was part of the original Politburo proposal.

With that being said if we want to change that, I dont have a problem with it but I think you already know I won't let this discussion get too down into the weeds. And that was part of the reason for my latest post because saying:"make a concentrated narrow blitz into Berlin" is too much in the weeds for the Politburo. This is bordering at least upon Operational guidance which again is clearly a STAVKA responsibility.

Again, Im just talking about the what in General terms. The who how where and when is clearly a STAVKA responsibility.

And I will not limit dicussing "Grand Strategy" to just Politburo members. The thread will be for all to discuss.

Maybe we just have a misunderstanding here, but quite honestly I dont really have time right now to "grasping for power" in real life.

However I do have time to channel discussion that will benefit the game and direct our youthfull exuberence in hopefully the right direction.

[Bossy20000]

Well, as a reply to your post about me changing my mind.
The first quote is one of today, the other is one of May the 26th. On may the 26th, the Politburo wasn't founded yet. We only saw birth on May the 30th, and received our commisions on June the 7th.
So, the second quote you use was made BEFORE we had a politburo. STAVKA was all we had, so it was clear we had to discuss general strategy there. Now we do have a Politburo, so we can discuss strategy there instead of doing it at STAVKA.
The third quote you use is one of yourself, in STAVKA thread, made on May 25th, also before there was a Politburo.

Before you start insultive posts, you better should do some research!

EDIT: I still have to do the polls about comrades Anzyakovs proposals for the Politburo. Should I wait until this is cleared out?

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Bossy20000
EDIT: I still have to do the polls about comrades Anzyakovs proposals for the Politburo. Should I wait until this is cleared out?

I have not seen an objection to this so I think we should go ahead. Finally deciding on Anzakov's proposals is on my list of open issues to close out!

So go ahead and start. If you have specific questions about how to word Polls or exactly what the proposals are please get with Anzyakov , he is the brain trust on those issues. Thanks!

[Shaka Naldur]

well, I thought everything that cover the military strategy was Stavka business...
and concerning politics it was Stavka's

[yop73]

I don't understand what the trouble is. If those bureaucrats want to spend afternoons discussing about any military actions, fine.

But in the end it are still the front-commanders and especially the marchall who descide.

If they want to discuss military, just let them.

Btw. This is the first and last time that I'm going to interfere in politics. I'm a general and all the bureaucracy in Moskou really doesn't interrest me. All I want is to see some German and Finnish blood.

(PS Nothing personnal off course, just the role ...)

[conmcb25]

All

Please read the 5th sentence in this paragraph:

This is the only reason I posted that the Politburo should begin discussing "Grand Strategy".

This was the proposal that we voted on when WE (Thats all of us!) voted to have a politburo.

"POLITBURO is the Civilian Committe in Charge. They Hire and Fire the Marshall. If Stavka memebers are tired of or want to get rid of the Marshall they need to covince the POLITBURO. POLITBURO handles the civilian issues:Propoganda, Industrial production, finances, Party Purity and Policing those not loyal to the Party. They also determine the Strategic direction of the war. The POLITBURO is composed of 7 members. Those seven chose the General Secretary/Party Chairman and he appoints members to different roles."

(This is also posted in the first post of this thread and was copied directly from the vote we had on whether to have a politburo or not.)

I am still perplexed as to why this is such an issue. And Im REALLY perplexed on why Front Commanders are commenting on whether we should do it or not because I already said the discussion of this would be open to all.

[FiGu]

I think you should leave the grand strategics to stavka.. where it belongs..

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by FiGu
I think you should leave the grand strategics to stavka.. where it belongs..

"War is merely Politics by other means."

Thats Clauswitz.

I dont agree and I still dont understand why all you guys are acting like Im taking away your birthday or something.

We voted on this proposal. I was following up on a Politburo action. I just dont understand why we are flailing testosterone all over the place!