Different German Oil Strategy

[Stugbit]

Hey, hello Jesk. How are you?

About the other topic deal, Do you still believe it was not a plausible idea to try to hold the Soviet to a stale and a peace in separate in the Dniepr and Dvina rivers?

My best regards.

[jesk]

About the other topic deal, Do you still believe it was not a plausible idea to try to hold the Soviet to a stale and a peace in separate in the Dniepr and Dvina rivers?

Hitler left Army Group North in the Baltic until the end of war. It was not easy surrounded by opposition generals, but he managed to push this and many other unpopular decisions. The group "North" started from East Prussia and hasn't returned not to prevent to occupy Germany.

[jesk]

The most successful agent in history under cover. Was engaged in sabotage in the military field.

[AbollonPolweder]

.If there was a better alternative strategy, the Germans would have followed it.They didn't, thus there was no better one .

Congratulations! Is this a universal law that if some people can not solve the problem, then no one will solve it? And the problem is unsolvable in principle. Or do you mean that Germany could not defeat Russia never and under any conditions? Cool! You should have told about this "great idea", for example, to the Japanese in 1905 , to the Afghan Mujahideen in 1985 or to the Chechen fighters in 1995. It's a pity for me as a Russian that your "gospel" didn't reach them at that time.

[ljadw]

The German professionals,people who were experts in warfare ,knew that victory in the East depended on what the SU would do,could do , on the sudden appearance of a Deus ex Machins,iow a miracle, and Hitler knew it and agreed with it .And their opinion has more value than the opinion of anonymous posters who 75 years later,are still trying to make a German victory possible .
The reality is that in June 1941 the Soviet Union was, from a defensive POV,invincible .
You can give Germany more tanks, more divisions, everything you can invent, the Germans would still fail .

[Paul Lakowski]

Believing in Russian invincibility....Now that's a narrow minded POV

[Peter89]

No country is invincible.

I think it's safer to say that USSR wasn't just one step from collision, no historical battle resulting a German victory (instead of a defeat) would automatically result their collapse.
(But their potential collapse shouldn't be ruled out as a principle.)

Their totalitarian regime wouldn't give up either before the very end.

And they were supported by the most powerful nations of the age (UK & USA).

[ljadw]

Believing in Russian invincibility....Now that's a narrow minded POV

Denying facts, that's a narrow minded POV : in June 1941 Germany was the strongest military power on earth,..and failed to defeat the SU . That's proving that in 1941 the SU was invincible .

[ljadw]

And they were supported by the most powerful nations of the age (UK & USA).

That's irrelevant to explain the German failure to defeat the SU in the summer and autumn of 1941, because in the summer and autumn of 1941 the help of the US and of Britain was meaningless .

[Peter89]

And they were supported by the most powerful nations of the age (UK & USA).

That's irrelevant to explain the German failure to defeat the SU in the summer and autumn of 1941, because in the summer and autumn of 1941 the help of the US and of Britain was meaningless .

Not exactly, they tied down a substantial part of the German armed forces, and provided the necessary moral / political support for the state and the system.

For example, the leaders of the USSR could feel themselves safe from retribution for the illegal attack against Finland, which was the primary cause they got expelled from the LN. USSR also invaded Poland (September 19. 1939) even though she was granted protection under the "Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland" (March 13. 1939). Later, in the light of the growing Axis influence in Albania and Transylvania, this agreement was expanded to Greece and Romania (April 13. 1939). Shortly thereafter, the USSR annexed Bessarabia, thus violating the territorial integrity of Romania (June 28. 1940). If they were to be held accountable by the powerful empires of the West, that would seriously "mean a lot" to the USSR. (Even later, the political support of the West internationally justified the bestial deeds and the occupation in Central-Eastern Europe.)

[ljadw]

No , Britain "tied '' some 50 German divisions, most of which who were useless for Barbarossa . If Britain and France had remained neutral, more than 50 German divisions would have been tied .These 50 divisions could not be used for Barbarossa, whatever the situation would be .
The use of the word '' illegal '' for the Soviet attack on Finland,is very questionable,because it implies that there were also legal attacks.An illegal attack is an attack from a loser, a legal attack is an attack from a winner .That the SU was expelled from the LN because of its attack on Finland,is irrelevant,as it was not the LN who was deciding what was legal or illegal .
The Treaty between Britain and Poland excluded specifically the SU ,and as Poland did not declare war on the SU,there was no reason for Britain to declare war on the SU .
The annexation of Bessarabia was no violation of the Romanian territorial integrity, unless the Polish annexation of a part of CZ in 1938 and parts of Germany in 1945 were also violations of the territorial integrity of CZ and Germany .
About illegal attacks, after WWI Greece invaded the Ottoman Empire and no one said that it was illegal, Serbia invaded Austria and annexed parts of Austria,Italy invaded and annexed Ethiopia amd Albania and almost all countries recognized this annexation including Poland .Etc, etc ...The only member of the LN that refused to recognize the annexation of Ethiopia was the SU .
When in 1938/1939 Hungary invaded and annexed a part of Czechoslovakia, Poland agreed because otherwise this region risqued to become independent and to be an Ukrainian Piedmont .(It was mainly inhabited by Ukrainians ) . The Soviets did the same in September 1939 for the same reason : they invaded Eastern Poland (or Western Ukraine ) because they feared that the Germans would occupy it and would create an Ukrainian puppet state (there were a lot of Ukrainians in this region ) .
Is this all making all these annexations legal ? No . Is it making these annexations illegal ? No .
Legal/illegal are words to be avoided when one speaks about invasions/annexations .

[ljadw]

If they were to be held accountable by the powerful empires of the West, that would seriously "mean a lot" to the USSR.

WHY should the West ( = Britain,France, US ) hold them accountable ?
And, what do you mean by ''accountable '' ?

[Stugbit]

If you have said that Soviet Union was a very, very difficult country to defeat, I would agree with you, Ijadw, since they were fighting a two front war and all. But since you said it was impossible, I can`t.

I won`t keep saying here my argument about the whole importance of many social and subjective aspects of the war, as we can barely agree here that the Stalingrad was an attrition battle.

But military warfare and strategy is not a hard science as you may think, and I strong suggest you have a look at On War, as positivism in social matters has always proved problematic. Those Clausewitz`s and Jomini`s works may me be considered irrelevant because of it`s age, but they are still very important to understand warfare.

Yet, when you say that Soviet Union was invincible it has many implications, though.

The first, is the fact that this argument exempt the German commanders and leaders of their responsibilities over their choices during the war. And they had no importance in the development of the war.
I think that this discourse of “Aryan superior race” may have had an impact even today on people’s minds. It`s impressive how people can still think that the Germans were superior in terms of calculations, evaluations of things. A Germanic person is propense to make a mistake just like anyone else.

The second, and more important, is the fact that when you say Soviet Union was invincible, you`re basically saying that the Lend Lease had no importance at all, and, unless you are a Stalinist or a Russian National propagandist, that doesn`t make any sense.
Lend Lease had a superb importance in the development of the war and without the Western Allies, Soviet Union wouldn`t be able to stand the war against Germany.


Answering Jesk about the Hitler being a Soviet agent:

I have seen many weird things in history, so I would not discredit completely even that assumption. But I got to tell you, this is highly unlikely.
This account almost for Stalin giving a gun to a stranger put in the back of his head.
Hitler was an Austrian, he fought WWI, he had a background. How would you trust something like the German Military power to just a person, an agent? Even trusting Sorge it took the Soviets many time, as initially they considered him not trustable.

Even so, Hitler pointed the gun and reached almost Moscow. It was not an easy thing reaching that far in Russia. Still, there was a precedent invasion developed in the same way. The Napoleon`s one...

You can argue that Napoleon himself was an agent of the Russian Empire. But what would be the mathematic probability of having two narcissistic disordered, low stature megalomaniacs working as agents for Russia?

[Ironmachine]

Believing in Russian invincibility....Now that's a narrow minded POV

Denying facts, that's a narrow minded POV : in June 1941 Germany was the strongest military power on earth,..and failed to defeat the SU . That's proving that in 1941 the SU was invincible .

Even setting aside the circumstances involved in the very particular case of Barbarossa, the fact that Germany failed to defeat the Soviet Union in 1941 only proves... that in 1941 the Soviet Union was not defeated! But in no way does that proves that the Soviet Union was invincible, that is that there was no way that the Soviet Union could be defeated by Germany in 1941 (or, why not, in a multiyear campaign). Please note that I'm not saying that Germany could have found a way to defeat the Soviet Union, but you are not proving that nothing else could have happened. The underlying logic of your viewpoint, it happened that way so it could have only happened that way, is faulty.

[Peter89]

1.) You're right, the powerful writes the rules. And power lied with the UK and the USA, so they wrote the rules. The LN regarded the Soviet war upon Finland illegal. In case of the Baltic states, which were occupied with limited resistance, the international attitude was different. I'm not talking about my feelings, I'm talking about the international (mainly anglophonic) support for the SU in 1941, what they very much needed for the survival of their state and system. The approval and support of the West meant that the Soviet gains in Central-Eastern Europe can be consolidated if the war is won. (Meaning their war in Eastern Europe is justified by the West, they will not be held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.)

But, contrary on what you just wrote, the Polish-UK treaty does NOT specifically exclude the SU. The whole document can be read here: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreem ... don_(1939)

2.) Saying that the war with UK had no effect on the war with the SU in 1941 is very weird. It's not just that the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine could not support the attack with full force, it's much more complicated.

Eg. the effect of the decimated airborne troops and planes on Crete really hindered German efforts to use airborne attacks and aerial support.

The timing itself had a huge factor, and the campaign towards the Balkans (directly triggered by the UK intervention in Greece) definately delayed Barbarossa, which was originally timed for 15th May 1941. You cannot evaluate the effect of that, no one can.