Swiss to vote on ending Militia system

[Colon™]

Yeah sure, leaving aside for a moment it involved attacking the USSR, Barbarossa was a sound plan.

[kentonio]

Yeah sure, leaving aside for a moment it involved attacking the USSR, Barbarossa was a sound plan.

Based on the German intelligence at that time, it was a fairly good time to attack the USSR before they were able to fully mobilize. Also bearing in mind that the Soviets were the Nazis ultimate ideological enemies and a conflict between the two at some point was absolutely inevitable.

It's also worth remembering that Barbarossa very nearly worked.

[Colon™]

You might just as well assume that Stalin hadn't decimated his entire officer corps and he hadn't interfered with war strategy to at least an equal degree as Hitler.

Yeah sure, it may have been a good time to attack the USSR. Like during his hibernation it also the best time to start a fight with a bear, and you may get the chance to throw a number of good punches, but that doesn't make it any less of a lousy idea to begin with.

[kentonio]

You might just as well assume that Stalin hadn't decimated his entire officer corps and he hadn't interfered with war strategy to at least an equal degree as Hitler.

Assume why? They were both pretty ****ty military leaders who both killed perfectly good military generals for idiotic reasons. Hitler succeeded in the early years because he was an extremely good politician and was better at reading the international community than most people (either that or he completely fluked it in his naivety, it's impossible to say for sure).

Yeah sure, it may have been a good time to attack the USSR. Like during his hibernation it also the best time to start a fight with a bear, and you may get the chance to throw a number of good punches, but that doesn't make it any less of a lousy idea to begin with.

Russia has this reputation of being basically unconquerable in large part because of Barbarossa. Yes Napoleon screwed up an invasion of the place too, but for an industrial age country like Germany the challenges were seemingly perfectly achievable. Russia isn't invincible, it's just big and sitting back and refusing to attack when you know you're going to end up at war one day anyway would have been pretty stupid. Basically they should have just waited another year, but luckily Hitler was in a hurry.

[Colon™]

Assume why?

Your thesis is that if Hitler hadn't done this wrong and that wrong... well, then you might just as well bring Stalin's blunders into the equation.

...but for an industrial age country like Germany...

USSR's industrial base was a good bit larger than Germany's on the eve of WW2.

[Lonestar]

Yeah sure, leaving aside for a moment it involved attacking the USSR, Barbarossa was a sound plan.

"Leaving aside for the moment it was a fundamentally stupid decision with logistical problems beyond the capability of the Germans to plan for, it was a sound idea"

[Lonestar]

Sorry that's completely inaccurate. Barbarossa for instance (although based on faulty intelligence of Soviet troop numbers) was originally a fairly sound plan. Hitlers interference in it, and insistence on certain aspects taking precedence over others led it to fail. His interference grew as the war progressed.

Which interference led it to fail?

Seriously, the Germans did a ****ty job of planning the logistics for it from the get go, and they didn't start having frontline troops well supplied until, well, 1944 when the Frontline was touching the German rail network.

The Germans never had a chance to win in the East, but all opposition to it disappeared in the German General Staff because, again, they were drinking their own Kool-aid after France was defeated so easily.

[kentonio]

Your thesis is that if Hitler hadn't done this wrong and that wrong... well, then you might just as well bring Stalin's blunders into the equation.

It was a simple point that his decision to override the planning of his generals led directly to the attack bogging down and allowing the Soviets time to reverse the course of the war. There is no point in just saying 'well anyone could have done anything differently' because, well duh.

USSR's industrial base was a good bit larger than Germany's on the eve of WW2.

The Napoleonic invasion failed because of the size of Russia and thus the time it took to move armies in the face of the Russian winter. When you're dealing with motorized vehicles, planes etc those considerations are different. For one thing consider the different in supply lines between the two periods.

[Felch]

The Germans never had a chance to win in the East, but all opposition to it disappeared in the German General Staff because, again, they were drinking their own Kool-aid after France was defeated so easily.

If the Japanese had gone for an Asiatic strategy instead of the Pacific one, Stalin wouldn't have been able to shift 18 divisions and thousands of tanks and planes from the Far East in time for Operation Typhoon. But obviously that would have required the Axis to be an actual alliance instead of whatever the hell it was.

[kentonio]

"Leaving aside for the moment it was a fundamentally stupid decision with logistical problems beyond the capability of the Germans to plan for, it was a sound idea"

Except it wasn't beyond their capabilities, which is why it came very close to succeeding.

Which interference led it to fail?

Chiefly the decision to not prioritize the attack on Moscow. The generals believed that crushing Moscow would make the Russians collapse, Hitler didn't think the capital was that important. At several points Hitler diverted forces that could have taken the capital. That led to the Germans bogging down as winter arrived and the Soviets having the time to reorganize and muster enough strength to push back.

Seriously, the Germans did a ****ty job of planning the logistics for it from the get go, and they didn't start having frontline troops well supplied until, well, 1944 when the Frontline was touching the German rail network.

Not true, the main thing they lacked was winter gear, which was because the entire invasion was supposed to be over before winter fell. A winter it's worth mentioning which was one of the worst in Russian history and which played a significant role in what happened.

The Germans never had a chance to win in the East, but all opposition to it disappeared in the German General Staff because, again, they were drinking their own Kool-aid after France was defeated so easily.

You can keep repeating the same 'kool-aid' line as often as you want, Operation Barbarossa absolutely devastated the Soviet forces and drove deep into the heart of Russia. A few better decisions by Hitler and the Soviets would have fallen like the French did. They had huge numbers, but they were left absolutely reeling by the initial invasion, and it was a very, very close thing that they held on and eventually turned the tide.

The Russians deserve absolutely huge respect for their achievements (which were at an unbelievably high cost in Russian blood), and this nonsense about how the Germans never had a chance to win is an insult to their memories quite frankly.

[kentonio]

If the Japanese had gone for an Asiatic strategy instead of the Pacific one, Stalin wouldn't have been able to shift 18 divisions and thousands of tanks and planes from the Far East in time for Operation Typhoon. But obviously that would have required the Axis to be an actual alliance instead of whatever the hell it was.

True dat.

[Colon™]

Kentonio, the trouble with your reasoning is that you take the extent Germany managed to advance as a given, whereas it was actually something remarkable and largely the result of grave mistakes on Soviet side. BOTH sides made mistakes. Creating a hypothetical situation where one side makes none at all and while other still does is a stupid way of analysing the war.

[kentonio]

Kentonio, the trouble with your reasoning is that you take the extent Germany managed to advance as a given, whereas it was actually something remarkable and largely the result of grave mistakes on Soviet side. BOTH sides made mistakes. Creating a hypothetical situation where one side makes none at all and while other still does is a stupid way of analysing the war.

It is in no way 'stupid' to highlight certain mistakes that led to certain outcomes. You can do exactly the same from the Soviet side, and point to the mistakes that Stalin made held back Zhukov and others from a better early outcome.

You're arguing something completely pointless, and which has nothing to do with the original discussion, which was you claiming that Barbarossa was a stupid plan that couldn't have worked (which is nonsense) and Lonestar claiming that the German high command was incompetent and just blamed Hitler for everything post-war (which is also nonsense).

[Colon™]

Germany went to war against a country that possessed superior manpower, industry, natural resources and required vast supply lines to conquer. The only reason they managed to get as far as they did because Soviet military command had been politicised and because they were completely unprepared for a German attack. German military tactics relied on concentrating forces at certain points, punching a hole through the lines, encircling the enemy forces and destroying them. This can be countered by defending in deep, but the Soviet forces were strung all along the burder in preparation of a Soviet attack, which played right into Germany's hands.
However, the USSR was a tad larger than France or Poland, which allowed the Soviet to regroup and adapt several times over. You speak of taking Moscow as some sort of end all but the centre of Soviet arms production was another 1000 miles to the east...

Again, the remarkable thing that happened wasn't that Germany failed to defeat the USSR, it was that they got so far against a superior foe.

If it makes you happy, I'll admit that when one side does everything right while the other does everything wrong, that side will win, but that's just a stupid way of analysing things.

[kentonio]

The Soviet army was large but in no way a match for the experience, overall equipment and tactical superiority of the Germans initially. The Germans absolutely overran the Soviets in the early months. I have no idea what picture you're trying to paint, because it doesn't seem to bear that much relation to reality.