At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
gebhk
Member
Posts: 2624
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2041

Post by gebhk » 19 Feb 2023, 16:32

Um, I appreciate IJADW that you consider your opinion to be the only valid proof on any subject and everything that does not agree with your opinion to be lies, so this is not to you. Pleased don't trouble yourself to respond, therefore. For the rest of us, this is a hugely complex issue and any statements beginning 'the Ukrainians thought, wanted etc' are going to be a nonsense because there were as many opinions as there were Ukrainians - and that is before we even get into which Ukrainians we are talking about. We will never even know, without the aid of a time machine and a handy Mori poll, what the majority thought on any given subject let alone what they would have done about it in reality, had the opportunity presented itself. The fact is there was no such opportunity and not giving them and the other subject nations of the USSR such an opportunity was a classic Hitler own goal. Of course the own goal was unavoidable because the loopy ideology that drove him did not allow it - the same ideology that drove the invasion in the first place. Thus if AH had been sane enough to realise he could not invade the USSR successfully without the support of a goodly chunk of its population, he would probably have been sane enough not to invade it in the first place.

Incidentally the issue of how many Ukrainians fought in the Red Army is a huge 'so what? They had no more choice in it than the large number of Poles who fought in the WH. I would bet monkey nuts to dollars, also, that avoiding death through starvation in a POW camp was a far more potent recruiting carrot for the RONA and Vlasov's Legion than the promise of fighting against the evils of communism.
Last edited by gebhk on 20 Feb 2023, 13:37, edited 1 time in total.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2042

Post by ljadw » 19 Feb 2023, 17:03

gebhk wrote:
19 Feb 2023, 16:32
Um, I appreciate IJADW that you consider your opinion to be the only valid proof on any subject and everything that does not agree with yout opinion to be lies, so this is not to you. Pleased don't trouble yourself to respond, therefore. For the rest of us, this is a hugely complex issue and any statements beginning 'the Ukrainians thought, wanted etc' are going to be a nonsense because there were as many opinions as there were Ukrainians. We will never even know, without the aid of a time machine and a handy Mori poll, what the majority thought on any given subject let alone what they would have done about it in reality, had the opportunity presented itself. The fact is there was no such opportunity and not giving them and the other subject nations of the USSR such an opportunity was a classic Hitler own goal. Of course the own goal was unavoidable because the loopy ideology that drove him did not allow it - the same ideology that drove the invasion in the first place. Thus if AH had been sane enough to realise he could not invade the USSR successfully without the support of a goodly chunk of its population, he would probably have been sane enough not to invade it in the first place.

Incidentally the issue of how many Ukrainians fought in the Red Army is a huge 'so what? They had no more choice in it than the large number of Poles who fought in the WH. I would bet monkey nuts to dollars, also, that avoiding death through starvation in a POW camp was a far more potent recruiting carrot for the RONA and Vlasov's Legion than the promise of fighting against the evils of communism.
1 Barbarossa in 1941 had nothing to do with the Nazi ideology
2 Hitler convinced himself that the population of the USSR would revolt against their masters and he attacked the USSR because he saw no other option to win,or not defeat the war against Britain .
This is the opinion of the German historian Christian Gerlach and this is supported by the declarations from Hitler himself in 1940 and 1941 .
3 Vlasov's Legion was not composed of Ukrainians .
4 The fact that more Ukrainians fought in the Red Army than in the RONA indicates that more Ukrainians were hostile to Hitler than supporting Hitler .Besides, there are no proofs that a bigger percent of the Ukrainian soldiers of the Red Army were taken prisoner than the percent of the non Ukrainians in the Red Army . Thus the claim from post 2036 is unproved .
5 The majority of the Soviet population (including the non Russians ) was neutral about Soviet communism ,as it happens in almost all regimes, and a minority was hostile to it and an other minority was supporting the regime .
The majority fought, not for communism, but against the Germans who invaded their country .The same happened twice in Afghanistan, also in Iran, Iraq, Syria...
If an Ukrainian fought against the Germans, that does not mean that he was pro Stalin, if he fought against the Soviets ( a minority living in Polish Ukraine ) that does not mean that he supported Hitler .
Besides the OUN fought not only against the Soviets, but also against the Poles and killed as many Jews as possible .
Last point : Ukrainian nationalists killed in 1918 the German commander in the East :FM von Eichhorn . At least,that was the opinion of Himmler who distrusted the Ukrainians .


gebhk
Member
Posts: 2624
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2043

Post by gebhk » 19 Feb 2023, 18:49

The fact that more Ukrainians fought in the Red Army than in the RONA indicates that more Ukrainians were hostile to Hitler than supporting Hitler
Nope, all it indicates is that more Ukrainians were conscripted into the Red army than into the WH. Who they were hostile to, if anyone, we will never know. As for the rest of it, my opening comments apply. Just because you think people thought something is not even evidence, let alone proof.
Last edited by gebhk on 20 Feb 2023, 13:35, edited 1 time in total.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2044

Post by KDF33 » 19 Feb 2023, 18:51

gebhk wrote:
19 Feb 2023, 18:49
As for the rest of it, my opening comments apply. Just because you think people thought something is not even evidence, let alone proof.
Well, in fairness ljadw's epistemology is solipsism.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4506
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2045

Post by Aida1 » 19 Feb 2023, 20:06

gebhk wrote:
19 Feb 2023, 18:49
The fact that more Ukrainians fought in the Red Army than in the RONA indicates that more Ukrainians were hostile to Hitler than supporting Hitler
Nope, all it proves is that more Ukrainians were conscripted into the Red army than into the WH. Who they were hostile to, if anyone, we will never know. As for the rest of it, my opening comments apply. Just because you think people thought something is not even evidence, let alone proof.
Ljadw never thinks before he spews out nonsense. :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4506
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2046

Post by Aida1 » 19 Feb 2023, 20:07

ljadw wrote:
19 Feb 2023, 17:03
gebhk wrote:
19 Feb 2023, 16:32
Um, I appreciate IJADW that you consider your opinion to be the only valid proof on any subject and everything that does not agree with yout opinion to be lies, so this is not to you. Pleased don't trouble yourself to respond, therefore. For the rest of us, this is a hugely complex issue and any statements beginning 'the Ukrainians thought, wanted etc' are going to be a nonsense because there were as many opinions as there were Ukrainians. We will never even know, without the aid of a time machine and a handy Mori poll, what the majority thought on any given subject let alone what they would have done about it in reality, had the opportunity presented itself. The fact is there was no such opportunity and not giving them and the other subject nations of the USSR such an opportunity was a classic Hitler own goal. Of course the own goal was unavoidable because the loopy ideology that drove him did not allow it - the same ideology that drove the invasion in the first place. Thus if AH had been sane enough to realise he could not invade the USSR successfully without the support of a goodly chunk of its population, he would probably have been sane enough not to invade it in the first place.

Incidentally the issue of how many Ukrainians fought in the Red Army is a huge 'so what? They had no more choice in it than the large number of Poles who fought in the WH. I would bet monkey nuts to dollars, also, that avoiding death through starvation in a POW camp was a far more potent recruiting carrot for the RONA and Vlasov's Legion than the promise of fighting against the evils of communism.
1 Barbarossa in 1941 had nothing to do with the Nazi ideology
Your strange personal opInion again. :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
pukovnik7
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jan 2022, 13:31
Location: Split, Croatia
Contact:

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2047

Post by pukovnik7 » 02 Apr 2023, 21:12

ljadw wrote:
19 Feb 2023, 17:03
1 Barbarossa in 1941 had nothing to do with the Nazi ideology
It had everything to do with Nazi ideology:
1. Nazis believed that Communists were just looking to export Communism into Europe and were about to attack (correct while Lenin ruled, not so sure about Stalin's time)
2. Nazis, being socialists themselves, completely devastated Germany's economy. Lebensraum was not just a crazy ideological project, it was an economic necessity, the only way to prop up the failing economy without abandoning socialism.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2048

Post by ljadw » 02 Apr 2023, 22:20

pukovnik7 wrote:
02 Apr 2023, 21:12
ljadw wrote:
19 Feb 2023, 17:03
1 Barbarossa in 1941 had nothing to do with the Nazi ideology
It had everything to do with Nazi ideology:
1. Nazis believed that Communists were just looking to export Communism into Europe and were about to attack (correct while Lenin ruled, not so sure about Stalin's time)
2. Nazis, being socialists themselves, completely devastated Germany's economy. Lebensraum was not just a crazy ideological project, it was an economic necessity, the only way to prop up the failing economy without abandoning socialism.
1 is wrong :the Abwehr said that there were no Soviet plans to attack Germany and Goebbels also said the same .
2 is wrong : Nazis were not socialists (the socialist Strasser was eliminated in 1934 ) and the 25-points program was hidden in 1933.
It is also not so that on 22 June 1941 the German economy was destroyed and it is also not so that Germany needed the oil and grain of the USSR to survive .
3 The real reason for Barbarossa was the hope,assumption,wishful thinking ( you can chose ) that a defeat of the USSR before the entry of the US in the war ,would result in the capitulation of Britain .
The LW, KM, Heer had failed to force Britain to give up .The only remaining solution was to defeat the USSR .
Hitler said this several times during his conferences with his generals .

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2049

Post by KDF33 » 02 Apr 2023, 22:36

pukovnik7 wrote:
02 Apr 2023, 21:12
2. Nazis, being socialists themselves, completely devastated Germany's economy.
This is wrong. The German economy was in no way "devastated" in 1941.
Lebensraum was not just a crazy ideological project
I don't see anything crazy about Lebensraum. If you strip away considerations of morality, it made a lot of sense.

It was effectively the German version of Manifest Destiny.
it was an economic necessity, the only way to prop up the failing economy without abandoning socialism.
How?

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1453
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 03:52
Location: California

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2050

Post by Globalization41 » 03 Apr 2023, 00:59

I suspect Hitler got the idea for expansion into the Ukraine from Army vets returning from the WWI eastern front. He essentially started the Nazi party a couple of years later. Eastward expansion was just a vague idea held by only a few and took hold only gradually. ... Hitler was the driving force for the invasion of Russia. No one else could have forced it through. He signed off on the original Moscow direction to get more support from the Army. Hitler went along with the Moscow objective for a few weeks, then turned the main offensive right toward Kiev, which was what he wanted all along. Had Hitler's war machine drove straight to Moscow, it would have encountered impossible resistance and heavy loses. Stalin would not have surrendered Moscow. If it had fallen, Stalin would have continued fighting and Hitler's forces would not have got much further. The delay of the Moscow offensive caused by the fall of the Ukraine in 1941 meant that the capture of Moscow would be even more impossible. Meanwhile, the Crimea held out until 1942 (due to the Moscow offensive). ... The war would have ended up stalemated with the demarcation line somewhere near Minsk if Hitler had not declared war on the U.S.

Globalization41.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2051

Post by ljadw » 03 Apr 2023, 09:52

If Hitler had not declared war on the US ,US would have declared war on Germany : there was already a de facto war between both countries before Pearl Harbour .
There would be no stalemate near Minsk without a German DOW on the US as the Soviets would be in Berlin without the help of the US .Germany could not afford a long war,while the USSR could afford such a war .
About the Moscow objective : there was no such thing as a territorial objective .The objective was to defeat the Soviets on the border ,this would cause and be caused by the collaps of the Soviet regime and THAN, after the collaps of the regime, the 3 AGs ,all 3 of them, would advance with small forces as far as possible,it was hoped to go to the Volga .
The fall of Moscow would not cause the collaps of the regime, but the collaps of the regime would result in the fall of Moscow . And of other cities .

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2052

Post by KDF33 » 03 Apr 2023, 10:25

ljadw wrote:
03 Apr 2023, 09:52
There would be no stalemate near Minsk without a German DOW on the US as the Soviets would be in Berlin without the help of the US .
No. On the contrary, absent the U.S., the USSR was doomed.
Germany could not afford a long war,while the USSR could afford such a war .
This is delusional.

User avatar
pukovnik7
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jan 2022, 13:31
Location: Split, Croatia
Contact:

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2053

Post by pukovnik7 » 03 Apr 2023, 10:33

KDF33 wrote:
02 Apr 2023, 22:36
pukovnik7 wrote:
02 Apr 2023, 21:12
2. Nazis, being socialists themselves, completely devastated Germany's economy.
This is wrong. The German economy was in no way "devastated" in 1941.
it was an economic necessity, the only way to prop up the failing economy without abandoning socialism.
How?
Yes, it was. Not "devastated" as such, perhaps, but it was overheating, all foreign currency reserves were gone. What Nazis did was to issue "bills of exchange" to service debt and pay industry. Hjamar Schacht warned Hitler the economy would collapse if it continued on that course. When Hitler refused to listen, Schacht resigned in 1937. And he was absolutely correct. "Bills of exchange" have a service date or pull date - date after which the bills are drawn and issuer is asked for real money. Except, there was no real money. The entire operation was a scam.

In order to prevent complete economic collapse, Nazi government desperately needed influx of money from outside the German economy. That, or it would suffer the same - or worse - fate that the Weimar Republic did. Add to that the Nazi ideological focus on autarky, and armed conquest of Europe was the only possible solution. Annexation of Austria and Czech Republic helped a bit, but it wasn't enough. No single conquest was enough: because of how the Nazi economy worked, Germany just had to gobble up country after country to stay afloat.

In short, Germany lost the war the moment Nazis came to power.
ljadw wrote:
02 Apr 2023, 22:20
pukovnik7 wrote:
02 Apr 2023, 21:12
ljadw wrote:
19 Feb 2023, 17:03
1 Barbarossa in 1941 had nothing to do with the Nazi ideology
It had everything to do with Nazi ideology:
1. Nazis believed that Communists were just looking to export Communism into Europe and were about to attack (correct while Lenin ruled, not so sure about Stalin's time)
2. Nazis, being socialists themselves, completely devastated Germany's economy. Lebensraum was not just a crazy ideological project, it was an economic necessity, the only way to prop up the failing economy without abandoning socialism.
1 is wrong :the Abwehr said that there were no Soviet plans to attack Germany and Goebbels also said the same .
2 is wrong : Nazis were not socialists (the socialist Strasser was eliminated in 1934 ) and the 25-points program was hidden in 1933.
It is also not so that on 22 June 1941 the German economy was destroyed and it is also not so that Germany needed the oil and grain of the USSR to survive .
3 The real reason for Barbarossa was the hope,assumption,wishful thinking ( you can chose ) that a defeat of the USSR before the entry of the US in the war ,would result in the capitulation of Britain .
The LW, KM, Heer had failed to force Britain to give up .The only remaining solution was to defeat the USSR .
Hitler said this several times during his conferences with his generals .
1. Abwehr may have said so. I'm talking about what Hitler believed, as stated in Mein Kampf. For example:
During my sojourn in Vienna I used to look upon Germany as an imperturbable
colossus; but even then serious doubts and misgivings would often disturb me. In my
own mind and in my conversation with my small circle of acquaintances I used to
criticize Germany's foreign policy and the incredibly superficial way, according to my
thinking, in which Marxism was dealt with, though it was then the most important
problem in Germany. I could not understand how they could stumble blindfolded into
the midst of this peril, the effects of which would be momentous if the openly declared
aims of Marxism could be put into practice. Even as early as that time I warned people
around me, just as I am warning a wider audience now, against that soothing slogan of
all indolent and feckless nature: NOTHING CAN HAPPEN TO US. A similar mental
contagion had already destroyed a mighty empire. Can Germany escape the operation
of those laws to which all other human communities are subject?
In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles,
some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem
of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism
can be exterminated.
I considered the disastrous policy of the Triple Alliance as one of the consequences
resulting from the disintegrating effects of the Marxist teaching; for the alarming feature
was that this teaching was invisibly corrupting the foundations of a healthy political
and economic outlook. Those who had been themselves contaminated frequently did
not realise that their aims and actions sprang from this WELTANSCHAUUNG, which
they otherwise openly repudiated.
Sure, German intelligence may have stated that Soviets had no plans to attack Europe - but for Hitler, that was just a pause. Conflict was always coming, and so Hitler wanted to exterminate Communism before Communists could strike themselves.

2. Yes, they were. At the very least, they established socialist-like centralized/governmental control of the economy. As for economy, see my reply to KDF33.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2054

Post by ljadw » 03 Apr 2023, 12:15

KDF33 wrote:
03 Apr 2023, 10:25
ljadw wrote:
03 Apr 2023, 09:52
There would be no stalemate near Minsk without a German DOW on the US as the Soviets would be in Berlin without the help of the US .
No. On the contrary, absent the U.S., the USSR was doomed.
Germany could not afford a long war,while the USSR could afford such a war .
This is delusional.
Barbarossa was conceived as a short and fast campaign,because
1 only in such a campaign Germany could win
2 if Germany won in a long campaign ,it still would lose WW2

The USSR did not need Lend Lease to go to Berlin .
Reality is that Germany would lose
a against a coalition of UK and USSR
b against a coalition of UK and US
c against the USSR alone .
Reality is also that Germany could not win against Britain alone .
Germany had not the means to occupy Western Europe and at the same time defeat the USSR .
Germany had also not the means to occupy the USSR and at the same time defeat France and Britain .
This is proved by the fact that Germany had already lost WW2 at the end of June 1940 a year before Barbarossa ,while at that period the USSR still did business with Germany and Lend Lease to Britain still did not exist .
If Britain had capitulated before Barbarossa and Barbarossa was still executed ( for which there was no reason ), the Barbarossa forces would be weaker than when Britain still was fighting, as Germany would need additional forces to occupy Britain .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2055

Post by ljadw » 03 Apr 2023, 13:24

pukovnik7 wrote:
03 Apr 2023, 10:33
KDF33 wrote:
02 Apr 2023, 22:36
pukovnik7 wrote:
02 Apr 2023, 21:12
2. Nazis, being socialists themselves, completely devastated Germany's economy.
This is wrong. The German economy was in no way "devastated" in 1941.
it was an economic necessity, the only way to prop up the failing economy without abandoning socialism.
How?
Yes, it was. Not "devastated" as such, perhaps, but it was overheating, all foreign currency reserves were gone. What Nazis did was to issue "bills of exchange" to service debt and pay industry. Hjamar Schacht warned Hitler the economy would collapse if it continued on that course. When Hitler refused to listen, Schacht resigned in 1937. And he was absolutely correct. "Bills of exchange" have a service date or pull date - date after which the bills are drawn and issuer is asked for real money. Except, there was no real money. The entire operation was a scam.

In order to prevent complete economic collapse, Nazi government desperately needed influx of money from outside the German economy. That, or it would suffer the same - or worse - fate that the Weimar Republic did. Add to that the Nazi ideological focus on autarky, and armed conquest of Europe was the only possible solution. Annexation of Austria and Czech Republic helped a bit, but it wasn't enough. No single conquest was enough: because of how the Nazi economy worked, Germany just had to gobble up country after country to stay afloat.

In short, Germany lost the war the moment Nazis came to power.
ljadw wrote:
02 Apr 2023, 22:20
pukovnik7 wrote:
02 Apr 2023, 21:12
ljadw wrote:
19 Feb 2023, 17:03
1 Barbarossa in 1941 had nothing to do with the Nazi ideology
It had everything to do with Nazi ideology:
1. Nazis believed that Communists were just looking to export Communism into Europe and were about to attack (correct while Lenin ruled, not so sure about Stalin's time)
2. Nazis, being socialists themselves, completely devastated Germany's economy. Lebensraum was not just a crazy ideological project, it was an economic necessity, the only way to prop up the failing economy without abandoning socialism.
1 is wrong :the Abwehr said that there were no Soviet plans to attack Germany and Goebbels also said the same .
2 is wrong : Nazis were not socialists (the socialist Strasser was eliminated in 1934 ) and the 25-points program was hidden in 1933.
It is also not so that on 22 June 1941 the German economy was destroyed and it is also not so that Germany needed the oil and grain of the USSR to survive .
3 The real reason for Barbarossa was the hope,assumption,wishful thinking ( you can chose ) that a defeat of the USSR before the entry of the US in the war ,would result in the capitulation of Britain .
The LW, KM, Heer had failed to force Britain to give up .The only remaining solution was to defeat the USSR .
Hitler said this several times during his conferences with his generals .
1. Abwehr may have said so. I'm talking about what Hitler believed, as stated in Mein Kampf. For example:
During my sojourn in Vienna I used to look upon Germany as an imperturbable
colossus; but even then serious doubts and misgivings would often disturb me. In my
own mind and in my conversation with my small circle of acquaintances I used to
criticize Germany's foreign policy and the incredibly superficial way, according to my
thinking, in which Marxism was dealt with, though it was then the most important
problem in Germany. I could not understand how they could stumble blindfolded into
the midst of this peril, the effects of which would be momentous if the openly declared
aims of Marxism could be put into practice. Even as early as that time I warned people
around me, just as I am warning a wider audience now, against that soothing slogan of
all indolent and feckless nature: NOTHING CAN HAPPEN TO US. A similar mental
contagion had already destroyed a mighty empire. Can Germany escape the operation
of those laws to which all other human communities are subject?
In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles,
some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem
of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism
can be exterminated.
I considered the disastrous policy of the Triple Alliance as one of the consequences
resulting from the disintegrating effects of the Marxist teaching; for the alarming feature
was that this teaching was invisibly corrupting the foundations of a healthy political
and economic outlook. Those who had been themselves contaminated frequently did
not realise that their aims and actions sprang from this WELTANSCHAUUNG, which
they otherwise openly repudiated.
Sure, German intelligence may have stated that Soviets had no plans to attack Europe - but for Hitler, that was just a pause. Conflict was always coming, and so Hitler wanted to exterminate Communism before Communists could strike themselves.

2. Yes, they were. At the very least, they established socialist-like centralized/governmental control of the economy. As for economy, see my reply to KDF33.
1 What Hitler said was about a period when there was no Communist state and the Marxist danger in Germany before 1914 was almost an invention .
2 Government war control of the economy does not mean government control of the peace economy .Krupp had nothing to fear .
Besides what you call socialist-like centralized/governmental control of the economy was much stronger in Britain than in Germany .
3 The same Hitler who said that he wanted to exterminate Communism before Communism could exterminate him, did very good business till June 1941 with the only Communist state = the USSR .
There were people who said that in the long way Nazism and Communism could not coexist, but for Hitler war with the Soviets could only happen in the 1950s, in the long way and in the long way, we are all dead .
No stronger anti-communist than Reagan, and one of the first things he did was to resume the grain exports to the USSR,which had been stopped by Carter after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan .
4 Kinzel ( chief of FHO ) said :
''Da jedoch aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach die Russen nicht mit einem Krieg beginnen werden ....''
''As following all probability the Russians will not start a war...''
Source : DRZW, Bd 4 , P 336 .
The Soviets refused to fight for Poland in September 1939 ,they could have easily invaded Germany in May 1940, thus why would they have attacked Germany in June 1941 ?
The decision to start Barbarossa had nothing to do with the fear for a Soviet attack or for a Marxist invasion of Europe,and such an invasion never happened,even when the Soviets could have succeeded .

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”