Germany's war aims

[sandeepmukherjee196]

..........................

It kept going because until the end of November 1941 Germany's war aims were thought to be achievable, and for the four or five months thereafter it was riding a tiger and there was no way to get off. During the summer and autumn of 1942, with Moscow never seriously threatened, Stalin would have been disinclined to accept any 'reasonable' peace offer, even if Hitler could have been persuaded to make one; and after Stalingrad the stark choice for the Wehrmacht was 'victory or death'.

Hi...

As late as 1943 Hitler turned down the Soviet offer of settling for pre-war borders. In my book, this was a most reasonable offer under the global circumstances in '43. If there were any apprehensions (quite logical at that) that the Soviets were trying to buy a free pass over hundreds of miles of their own land and trying to bring the cease fire line closer to German borders...well, there were ways of de-risking that 'am sure. Demilitarised zones et al.

Cheers
Sandeep

[Boby]

There was a Soviet offer in 1943?

Sources please.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

There was a Soviet offer in 1943?

Sources please.

A. M. Alexandrov, Soviet diplomat, once posted at Berlin, came to Stockholm in '43 to meet a suitable German counterpart. After initial parleys, in June 1943, Stalin sent Molotov for a meeting with Ribbentrop in Kirovograd, with an offer to settle for a pre June '41 cease fire line. Hitler, with his eternal cheek(!) made a counter offer with the Dnieper as the peace line. Though this was prior to Kursk, after Kharkov, and with all the new Tigers and Ferdinands gleaming on the steppes, it was still a foolhardy refusal on the part of Hitler, I must say, albeit with hindsight.

(Ref :
David Downing ; The Devil's Virtuosos; Panzer Hari Kiri; page 156
Thomsen (German Minister in Sweden), Stockholm, to German foreign office, June 21, 1943, AA, microfilm 191, frames
144408-09.
B Liddell Hart; History of the Second World War , page 488, 510
Stalin and the Prospects of a Separate Peace in World War II; Vojtech Mastny
Peter Kleist's version on this has been discredited, he was Rosenberg's aide once upon a time in the RMfdbO, after all.
Finally http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=133177 may be referred too ).

[Boby]

Thanks!

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Welcome

[Max Payload]

A. M. Alexandrov, Soviet diplomat, once posted at Berlin, came to Stockholm in '43 to meet a suitable German counterpart. After initial parleys, in June 1943, Stalin sent Molotov for a meeting with Ribbentrop in Kirovograd, with an offer to settle for a pre June '41 cease fire line. ....

(Ref :
David Downing ; The Devil's Virtuosos; Panzer Hari Kiri; page 156
Thomsen (German Minister in Sweden), Stockholm, to German foreign office, June 21, 1943, AA, microfilm 191, frames
144408-09.
B Liddell Hart; History of the Second World War , page 488, 510
Stalin and the Prospects of a Separate Peace in World War II; Vojtech Mastny
Peter Kleist's version on this has been discredited, he was Rosenberg's aide once upon a time in the RMfdbO, after all.
Finally http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=133177 may be referred too ).

The Soviets have always claimed that Alexandrov was on the other side of the world in June '43.
With regard to the references:-

I haven't read Downing's book so I can't comment.

Liddell Hart's account of Molotov's clandestine June meeting with Ribbentrop hundreds of kilometres behind the German frontline was published posthumously. Liddell Hart provided no supporting evidence and none was found among his effects. Interestingly, in the near half century since Liddell Hart penned this claim, none of the (unnamed) German officers who were supposed to have participated (Liddell Hart's supposed sources) have, so far as I'm aware, made themselves known.

Kleist, a former spy, is generally regarded as an unreliable source. Mastny quotes him extensively, with caveats regarding his reliability. However Mastny is not entirely reliant on Kleist.

With regard to the April meeting in Sweden Mastny cites as the source "Swedish informants of the American Office of Strategic Services" who claimed "... a Swede with connections at the Russian legation was said to have arranged a meeting of diplomats at a country estate ..."
Mastny concludes that, "Although there is no way of checking the accuracy of its [the Swedish informants'] details, it is quite probable that informal exchanges occurred at Soviet initiative."

As regards the June meeting in Sweden, the evidence for this seems somewhat stronger. The American ambassador reported to Washington that at least one member of the Soviet legation seemed to have met with a low-level diplomat from the German foreign ministry on 16 June, and five days later Thomsen reported to Berlin that he had heard that a Soviet diplomat in Sweden had expressed a wish to "meet with a gentleman from the German foreign service with whom he was acquainted."

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi...

The evidence is by no means water tight. Stalin's views on a rapprochement with Germany seemed to be fluctuating with the ebb and flow of his relationship with the western allies.

Both Stalin and Churchill were cynical pragmatists. They were by no means wedded to the alliance through sickness and health.

It was Roosevelt who held the sweet threesome together.

[Yuri]

Hi...

The evidence is by no means water tight. Stalin's views on a rapprochement with Germany seemed to be fluctuating with the ebb and flow of his relationship with the western allies.

Both Stalin and Churchill were cynical pragmatists. They were by no means wedded to the alliance through sickness and health.

It was Roosevelt who held the sweet threesome together.

No, not Roosevelt! The sweet Trinity was saved for the history Adolf Alloisovich Hitler

[Kelvin]

The situation of USSR is much more better than those in 1941, still need peace offer to Germany ? I doubt that. In 1943, USSR had western support like LL material and allied bombing on German soil and invasion in the future, if she missed this golden opportunity to destroy Wehrmacht, once German recovered and would attack USSR again and at this moment, the western countries would no longer support on USSR on that. Both USSR and Western Powers had learnt those lessons during 1938-41 bitterly.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Pl remember that in the spring and summer of 43 the winter euphoria had died down in the STAVKA. "Kharkov" had happened in the meantime. Popov's Mobile Group (4th Guards,3rd,10th and 18th Tank Corps with 38th Guards Rifle Division, 57 Guards Rifle Division, 52 Rifle Division, 41 Guards Rifle Division and sundry units) had become history. And dont think just because the German 6th Army got wiped out, the winter campaign was fun for the Soviets either !
In 1943 if Hitler agreed to the Russian offer, he would likely lose Rumanian oil, he had already lost all chances at going for the Middle East oil. The Ukrainian granary would be lost to the Germans too. Economically it would have taken a long long time for the Wehrmacht to reach anywhere near its '42 heydays. Whereas the USSR was on a roll industrially. Its huge resource and manufacturing base had started kicking in..Western aid wasn't essential anymore. It was good but not essential.
How many millions of Soviet lives (military and civilian) do you think Stalin would have saved if Hitler pulled his troops back in '43?

[Kelvin]

In comparsion with the loss of 1941 and 1942, those lost in early 1943 really not a big deal for USSR, If USSR wanted to sue for peace, perhaps Oct 1941 or in June 1942 and not likely in the summer of 1943.

USSR Industrial potential was not that good, she focused on producing tanks, guns and mortars because she not need to produce motor vehicles and trucks and their accessories. US provided 427,000 motor vehicles and trucks and 3.7 million rubber tyres to Soviet army, without this how her 26 tank Corps, 11 Mechanized Corps and 31 Breakthrough Artillery Divisions with many independent artillery units to move on Eastern Europe.

Without western assistance, and when war with Germany broke out again, Not only did Russian need to produce her own tanks, guns, mortars and SMG, but also a large quantity of trucks and motor vehicles, even uniform, (US also provided a large number of military boots to Soviet army).

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Stalin guessed that the Germans would be more amenable to peace talks after the disasters in front of Moscow and then again at Stalingrad in 2 consecutive years. There was a very dim chance of Hitler looking for peace before Stalingrad.

The Soviets managed to defeat Typhoon before Moscow without American help. The Germans just about managed to stave off total disaster through Hitler's brainchild...the hedgehog defensive strategy. The USSR would have managed to hold their own anyways..American help or no American help.

It was the western allied block that depended on Russia for defeating Germany. Not the other way round. It would have been most interesting to see what happened in the Western European battlefields (or North African battlefields for that matter) if the full strength of the Wehrmacht was present there to face them.

[Kelvin]

Stalin guessed that the Germans would be more amenable to peace talks after the disasters in front of Moscow and then again at Stalingrad in 2 consecutive years. There was a very dim chance of Hitler looking for peace before Stalingrad.

The Soviets managed to defeat Typhoon before Moscow without American help. The Germans just about managed to stave off total disaster through Hitler's brainchild...the hedgehog defensive strategy. The USSR would have managed to hold their own anyways..American help or no American help.

It was the western allied block that depended on Russia for defeating Germany. Not the other way round. It would have been most interesting to see what happened in the Western European battlefields (or North African battlefields for that matter) if the full strength of the Wehrmacht was present there to face them.

Something like no one can defeat Germany alone. Given Germany's rescoures and population, however, we need two " Superpowers " plus Britsh empire to defeat her.You are right, supposing all German strength went to western battlefield, Anglo-Amercian troop would need to fight additional 200 battle-hardened German divisions. 20 Panzer divisions and 6 Panzergrenadiers Divisions will be released to Normany battlefield if Russian battlefield did not exist in June 1944. And Polesti oilfield was more secure which were out of allied strength, so German would have more oil for her panzer. Military pressure over Sweden and Turkey would be strengthened and made them hesitate to cut off the supply of Iron and chrome to Germany.

The strength of French Army in1940 was much more better than those of Soviet Army in 1941, German defeated the former so easily and the latter was only saved by her huge manpower and space and could make her had more chance to fight next year.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

But unfortunately Hitler's world view wouldnt allow that. During his time Germany was far removed from the Bismarckian geo-strategic precepts which called for peace and cooperation with Russia. After coming to power, Hitler tanked the close cooperation between the Reichswehr and the Russian military pronto ! Racial bigotry and his single minded focus on Bolshevism blinded Hitler to all else.

Kaiser Wilhelm II got rid of Bismarck and his legacy. He became a puppet in the hands of the General Staff which was politically naive, lacked statesmanship and human values. They led the 2nd Reich by the hand into a naively conceived and inepty executed world war. Those who shed tears for the plight of the great General Staff suffering at the hands of a stupid corporal in the 3rd Reich, conveniently forget the track record of this body in WWI.

In Hitler's Germany the roles of military strategic thinking, global statesmanship and visionary leadership, all willy nilly congregated in the hands of one man, who had superb instinct and self taught global knowledge in patches. But this man lacked real education and understanding of global history, socio-political evolution, different cultures and technology. He was a Bavarian - Austrian petit bourgeoisie, albeit a specially gifted one, with all the indiegenous prejudices and local prisms through which he saw the world.

Another man in his place, someone like Bismarck, would have gone about the business of attaining European hegemony in the 20th century, in a wholly different way .. with perhaps a wholly different outcome.