Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
Hi - if the Nazi invasion of Britain had succeeded, would Hitler have gone to war with Russia?
I sort of assume he got miffed he couldn't invade us, and so turned to invading Russia instead.
Thank you for any views.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 2
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
ElizaShaw2,
Germany was always going to attack Russia at some time.
When Hitler attacked Poland he was hoping as happened with Austria and Checkoslovakia Britain and France would not go to war.
He would then have built up his forces and attacked Russia in his own time and probably won thus owning all the raw materials he needed to make Germany the ultimate world power.
Meanwhile we would have rearmed and America may have woken up to world affairs.
All guess work, though highly probable.
Frank.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 3
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
Quite probably. In fact theres a possibility it might have been the other way around and the USSR would have attacked him.
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 4
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
As Reme says, Hitler always intended a war with the Soviet Union. However, timing is everything.
When Poland was invaded, Hitler did not think Britain and France would get involved. He probably intended to take France on later, but hoped Britain would stay neutral.
As Germany was a major land force, but a relatively weak maritime one, Operation Sealion was always problematical from their point of view.
Ian Kershaw (and other historians) are quite clear in attributing the attack on the SU on Hitler's desire to force Britain out of the war.
To clarify Hitler's probable intent, The timing SHOULD have gone like this.
1) Attack Poland.
2) Re-arm.
3) Intimidate or attack France. Possible reach a negotiated deal with Britain.
4) Re-arm.
5) Attack the Soviet Union.
Hitler needed the land between Poland and the Urals, or large amounts of it, for his 'lebensraum' policy.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 5
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
OK, so had Germany successfully invaded and occupied the UK, would that have delayed Barbarossa? And would that have affected the outcome at all, giving any advantage to either Germany or Russia thereby?
I know absolutely zilch about the Great Patriotic War except that it was GRIM. I should go and look it up before asking the next question, which would be: If Hitler always intended to attack Russia, and always wanted some Drang Nach Ostern-acquired Lebensraum, how did he envisage taking it from the USSR, and was it just a question of acquiring eg, the Ukraine and any of the other territories nicked by Brest-Litovsk in l917/18? Why did he imagine he could land a 'knock-out blow' on the USSR and get it to accept his land-grab, given that the first rule of European warfare is 'Never invade Russia'! (ie, you'll be so-ry!)
Thanks again.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 6
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
"...OK, so had Germany successfully invaded and occupied the UK, would that have delayed Barbarossa?..."
I think the attack on the SU would certainly have been delayed.
If the UK had been invaded in, say, August 1940, it would have taken most of Germany's might. They would then have to hold Britain and France at the same time. By then, Britain would have been strongly defended, with several lines of defence. It would have been bloody. A lot of people thing Germany could not actually defeat Britain.
It is difficult to be certain with these 'what if' scenarios, but my guess is that Germany would be in no poition to attack the SU the next year. Perhaps not even the year after that. Possibly they would be ready by 1943. But that probably ties in with German planning anyway.
However, having no enemy to the West, they would be in a much better position with regards attacking to the East.
Of course, we must then consider the SU's position between August 1941 and 1943. They would probably be increasing their own war readiness, but my guess is that theu would not have upped their military game plan enough to stop the Germans at the border.
Hitler held the Russians in contempt, which added to his planning problems in Barbarossa. I am un-clear as to where the German 'Stop line' would be in the East. The Urals, perhaps ? Or all the way to the Pacifice ? I don't know. It feels like a fantasy to me, but whatever Hitler lacked, it was not ambition.
Given a successful invasion of the UK, Germany could turn the UK's industrial output into military strength. That would most certainly have assisted Germany.
Finally, you mention Brest/Litovsk. This is irrelevant to Hitler with regards the SU. Un-like other, pre-1939 acquisitions, the attack on the SU was not about the injustices of the post-war settlement. It was about ideology and race conflict.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 7
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
I thought maybe BL was significant, both psycholgoically and practically, as it would have been 'historic' ("Our mighty Fuhrer is as good as our Imperial Kaiser and regains his conquests!" sort of thing), plus in practical terms it might have been more workable than trying to hold down 'Russia proper', because of the Ukraine's (justifiably!) weaker allegiance to Soviet Russia.
As to the 'German stop point', I would assume (??) there are some naturally-imposed lines of maximum communication issues, presumably a lot longer in the motorized/telephonised l940s than in 1812 but nevertheless pertinant to just what a German/collaborationist-Ukrainian force could hold down sustainably.
I believe I'm right in thinking that Hitler's generals were pretty aghast at the thought of invading Russia (having learnt from the last little corporal that tried it, etc)???Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 8
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
There are a couple of points people tend to forget.
Russia invaded Finland in what was called the Winter war 1939 and got a bloody nose. They eventually got a peace deal and some small land gains but it showed the world Russia was not ready for a full scale war.
The Battle of Britain showed the Germans they could not get air superiority which they needed to invade. There were still plenty of planes and pilots in the North to carry the fight had Germany tried to invaded, they guarded the coasts against the Luftwaffe who sent up to 300 planes a night over northern coasts to bomb inland cities.
We still had a large navy which in the case of an invasion and despite the u-boats would have been thrown at any invasion force stopping its supply lines. The troops plus guerrilla groups would have fought tooth and nail had the Germans landed on British soil.
As we saw with D-Day you needed massive numbers of re-supply vessels and even with full air cover that assault came to a halt for nearly a month.
Numbers and the best weapons in the world do not make such enterprises a walk over and I think Hitler knew enough to think twice about invasion, having his forces severely mangled for no gain would have given Russia time to re-arm and they were his main target.
All these things are possibility's, no one knows how hard people will fight for their own country and Ideals but one thing is sure we would not have gone down as easily as the French did.
Frank.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 9
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
In fact theres a possibility it might have been the other way around and the USSR would have attacked him.Β It is not only a possibility, but a certainty, according to the following historians:
Richard Raack, Y. Felshtinsky, A. Gogun, K. Zakoretsky, M. Meltyukhov, V. Nevezhin, I. Pavlova, M. Solonin, V. Suvorov, etc, etcLink to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 10
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
"one thing is sure we would not have gone down as easily as the French did."
Oh come now, just because there are four reverse gears on a French tank, no need to mock them....*
More seriously, from what you say, it doesn't sound as if Sealion was a goer in the first place. Again, presumably Hitler was just miffed we didn't roll over and beg for peace at any price after Dunkirk?
* Plus they certainly paid for their easy conquest, says that new book on the French Occupation (can't remember who by, read the review in the Sunday Times - villages destroyed in reprisal raids, teenagers shot, etc - let alone the poor Jewish population handed over to be slaughtered.)Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 11
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
ElizaShaw2 had Germany successfully invaded and occupied the UK, would that have delayed Barbarossa?Β I'm surprised that noone asked the following question: given Hitler's own explicit statements about the mutli-front war being the main reason for Germany's defeat in the WWI, and given Hitler's explicit statements about his own aversion of multi-front war, why would he rush to execute Barbarossa in the midst of the ongoing war on the Atlantic coast?
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 12
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
"If the UK had been invaded in, say, August 1940, it would have taken most of Germany's might. They would then have to hold Britain and France at the same time. By then, Britain would have been strongly defended, with several lines of defence. It would have been bloody. A lot of people thing Germany could not actually defeat Britain."
I rather think the reverse is true. Had Germany managed to land in Britain in any sort of strength they would easily have defeated the British Army. Let's face it, we'd just been kicked out of France and were seriously lacking in trained men and materiel. The only things stopping an invasion were the Royal Navy and the RAF. If the Luftwaffe could've defeated the RAF it would have made the Royal Navy far too vulnerable to provide a defence against a German invasion fleet.
Germany would still have invaded Russia regardless, but they would have had a much easier time of it if they hadn't had to have wasted so many men and resources in fighting in North Africa, Italy, and on the Atlantic Wall. I personally feel that Britain would have been a fairly subdued client state much like France did.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 13
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Again, they may have been able to take over our aircraft shipyards and arms factories, thus giving them a much needed boast. (They did it in the already occupied countries) Shorts were aleardy building the first long rang 4 engined bomber, and both Handly Page and Avro were close behind. This was something the Germans sadly lacked. Our readers will no doubt say that Churchill would have ordered their distruction, but would it have happened? So Germany then invades Russia supported by fleets of British built long range bombers as well as fighters. Perhaps even British troops who having been made P O Ws, and seen the Government and Royal Family sail away, and King Edward back in Buck House and a lot of Lords ladies and alike fawning over Hitler, decide that the German army, (And a chance to see ones family, was better than being a POW or doing slave labour.
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 14
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Was there anywhere within range that pilots could have flown British planes to, eg Eire? Or would the Irish have refused landing permission, and even if granted, would they have let the invading Nazis come over and help themselves? I take it Eire would have wanted to stay officially neutral. I wonder it they would have taken in refugees, especially ethnic ones
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 15
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Hitler wanted to force a peace agreement on the British so that he could turn his attention to Russia, but as it became more obvious that the air superiority needed to eliminate the British wasn't forthcoming, the "struggle against Bolshevism" became more of a priority. According to Ian Kershaw, there were few protests from the German generals at the prospect of invading the Soviet Union, despite as you say an apparent aversion to war on more than one front!
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 16
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
The Irish President was indeed looking forward to Britain being occupied. Churchill had offered them a deal, a reunited Ireland for the use of the navy bases, and had been told Hitler was going to reunite the country after Britain fell. I suppose some of the A/C could have made Iceland.
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 17
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
"The Irish President was indeed looking forward to Britain being occupied."
It's one of the (several!) things that put me off the Irish - that they do find it almost impossible to see past the English. ie, they define global events purely in terms of 'does it put the boot into the English?', and if it does, then, hey, fantastic!
Did it seriously not bother the Irish that yet another country was going to become a Nazi vassal state? I suppose they felt the English deserved it (taste of their own medicine etc etc)
I can understand the Finns and the Ukrainians siding with Germany rather than Russia, but then that's because the choice was Stalinism or Nazism! But were the Irish really so tunnel-visioned (polite term) as to think the English as bad as the Nazis?Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 18
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
as it became more obvious that the air superiority needed to eliminate the British wasn't forthcoming, the "struggle against Bolshevism" became more of a priorityΒ So, how does it make sense again? Hitler is getting stuck fighting the British with no end in sight, and - all of a sudden - the "struggle against the Bolshevism" becomes a priority, even though the "Bolshevism" is his biggest strategic war materials supplier at the moment and he is such an ardent opponent of the war on multiple fronts?
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 19
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
I think it makes sense from the POV that Hitler always had tobe seen to be successful - so if something blocked him somehwere (eg, the RAF) he had to move to something else that he could do, eg, invade Russia.
Isn't that the 'riding the tiger' dilemma that Churchill (?) damned him with?
If it's true that few of Hitler's generals genuinely felt that Barbarossa was a lousy idea (I mean, genuinely as opposed to what they were prepared, or dared, to say to Hitler!), then maybe the only driver they could have had was some kind of 'because we have to give it a go' imperative to invade Russia. Russia does seem to present a kind of 'fatal attraction' for invaders, as though none of thm believe it can avoid being conquered.
Why invade Russia? Because it's there...
That kind of attitude.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 20
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Why invade Russia? Because it's there...That kind of attitudeΒ That's it? Oh, ok.
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 21
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Think about it, it took nearly two years for the allies to prepare for D Day with shipyards and factories flat out building the landing craft lighters and everything else needed to land.
Once ashore it took nearly a month for them to consolidate their supplies and break out and that was with full air cover.
Hitler did not have that time or the essential supplies to build up to a seabourne assault. The lighters river barges and odd assembly of ships he gathered together would have needed some very calm weather once loaded with troops and armour, The channel is well known for rough seas and storms.
He needed oil and raw materials quickly where better than Russia.
Let us not forget that in some parts of Russia the Germans were hailed as saviours, had they acted the part Hitler may have changed history.
At the time they had no idea that America would be attacked by Japan and so pile the might of American supplies on to the British.
I never understood why Hitler promptly declared war on America, he signed his death warrant that day.
Frank.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 22
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
He needed oil and raw materials quickly where better than RussiaΒ He was already getting oil and raw materials from Russia.
I never understood why Hitler promptly declared war on America, he signed his death warrant that dayΒ He mistakenly counted on Japan to reciprocate by declaring war against Stalin. As far as Hitler was concerned, by that time US had been as good as at war with him already, and so he stated explicitely.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 23
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Well, it's not OK for the Russians, obviously, but you can see the Germans thinking 'Oh, come on, SOMEONE'S got to succeed in invading Russia! We can't just not - I mean, we OUGHT to invade Russia. It's there, and just because it's hard, even impossible, doesn't mean we have an excuse not to do it! We'll just have to force ourselves!'
(Obviously, this style of thinking does not include any sense that invading other people's countries is - usually - unfair on them, but then people who invade other people's countries tend not to be very concerned about the wellbeing of the people that live in them....)Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 24
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
The channel is well known for rough seas and storms.
****
"Sir, I do not say they cannot come. I say they cannot come by sea."
Always loved that quote. SOOOO English.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 25
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
"I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea." Β
Admiral of the fleet John Jervis Earl of St Vincent.
He quoted that addressing the house of Lords in 1801.
Frank.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 26
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
He was already getting oil and raw materials from Russia. Β
Agree but not enough plus the problem with the rail transfer.
Plus iron ore from Norway, Sweden and oil from the Balkan states, he wanted a lot more.
As with all Dictators they think themselves omnipotent, he had managed to capture a good chunk of Europe with not too much effort or loss, he was invincible and the German people thought so too.
Russia had proved inadequate in the war with Finland, Hitler knew it was strike then before Russia woke up.
Frank.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 27
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Agree but not enough plus the problem with the rail transfer.
Plus iron ore from Norway, Sweden and oil from the Balkan states, he wanted a lot more.Β Here's some food for thought: in June of 1940 - just when Hitler was entirely consumed with the preparations for Sealion - Molotov informed Ribbentrop that not only Stalin intended to occupy, or "liberate" as the term de jour was at the time, Bessarabia (which was outlined in the secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact), but also Bukovina (which was not). That would - and did - immediately put Red Army tanks within 100 kilometers from Ploesti oil fields, the only source of Germany's oil supply not already controlled by Stalin.
Russia had proved inadequate in the war with Finland, Hitler knew it was strike then before Russia woke upΒ Red Army did incur some hiccups, but it did successfully complete offensive operations in extremely - some military experts say impossible - difficult conditions for executing offensive operations. Liddell Hart, for example, stated that Red Army's perceived ineffectiveness in the Finnish campaign was grossly exaggerated.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 28
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
"I do not say...." (Admiral of the fleet John Jervis Earl of St Vincent)
Apparently, though, and I'd never known this, Boney hired a balloonist to help in his little plan. Moreover, a FEMALE one! Mme Madelaine Sophie Blanchard
Amazing what you find in Wiki.
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 29
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
ElizaShaw2,
"I do not say...." (Admiral of the fleet John Jervis Earl of St Vincent)Β
I know that, but us people who were taught "hinglish has she is spoke" in the old school had to know from whence the quotes came we used. You would be surprised at what our old heads still contain.
"Wiki" I would not touch it with a barge pole, it is deeply insecure and the knowledge it transmits is very suspect as it can be fiddled with by almost anyone.
Stick to books or Google.
Frank.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 30
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Alas, I was too lazy to look up the attrib! Mea Culpa!
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Just see the greater picture. These wars were never done "for the German nation" or for the "English nation" or the "French nation" - the latter being the first to fight "internationalisticocapitalist" wars in the name of the nation. "Nationalist" Revolutionary French and their allies were the first to invade post-Great Peter Russia. Imperial British and their allies followed... it seems that there was something in Russia that bothered ALL western and central Europeans and that despite the fact that Russia had hardly shown any interest in conquering militarily western Europe having already a landmass some 10 times bigger than all of the european states together. Any involvement of Russia into European affairs was mostly thanks to the idiotic Russian royal family (& surrounding aristocracy) habit of intermarrying (and thus intermingling) with other European royal/aristocratic families... and was not any expression of a general wish of Russians (polititians or people) to conquer or even control militarily the likes of Germany, France or Britain.
The opposite though held true, with German states, then France and of course Britain (the most weary of all) fearing the rapid expansion and development of Russia in much of the worlds' landmass. Even the British-French politics in the Middle East was a
I think the WWI was not so much a conflict of Britain wanting to control a developing Germany but mainly of Britain wanting via a dummy Germany
and France to control a developing Russia. The fact that the WWI supposedly a western war started from the Balkans (where an important part of WWI battles occured) is not at all accidental. The fact that Britain - despite as-if fighting an all for all war against germany on the sides of France was also fully into sending armies in the Middle East is really revealing of the situation: if you do not control a war just next to your house threatening you and if you are not sure of its ending then you are not so cool as to to send off vast armies in far distant lands...
The WWII similarly was fought on the same lines. Germany was there to be not the protagonist but to play the 2nd role (that is my personal opinion). Right from the beginning it had not the initiative. Had they been a bit reasonable, they would have never attacked Russia, never attacked the Balkans or even Poland, they would have attacked the north part of France and directly send a massive army of 3 million soldiers attack Britain and try to take it up in a few months before their oil supplies finish. Had they done so they could even make a special pact with the USSR and divide north Europe into German-controlled and Russian-controlled (something that back then was feasible along the lines of the pan-germanism and panslavism that really touched the hearts even of some English and Polish, currently the main anti-isms), and in that it would imply that Russians would sell oil to the German army to face the event of a
Given the total failure of western armies (be it French, British or American) to engage the Germans unless having at least 3 times the numbers together with British landscape and with the relative indifference of French to the fate of British (French by then conquered), I doubt British could do anything more against the onslaught of 3 million Germans falling on them (even if British had still a better navy they would at some point break, the channel is not tha big) other than send from the east armies made up of Indians and Chinese which - in the event of a Russian-German stronger pact would be merely a slight annoyment for the Russians that would deal with them swiftly (needless to say that Indian British armies were not effective due to the traditional careless leadership of autocratic British over the Indians and their lack of respect for those soldiers and their lifes, I only need to say that Ottomans had beaten a 300,000 such army very easily in Iraq).
So why indeed did Germans attack Russia? Well, the war was a fake from start to finish afterall. Even a child knows, you just do not invade Russia if you wish to stay on power, you can only hit and then and run for your life...Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 32
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
sealion was NEVER an option
Lebensraum (living space ) always was
it was always what the war was about
after his excuse to start the war - poland - was successful - he was amazed that the uk joined in - after the french army was destroyed in 6 weeks he had some time to fill before the invasion of russia
occupying the uk was not part of his plan
sealion was not a neccessary step in the overall plan - barbarossa was the whole point of ww2
why do we keep overestimating our importance in the whole scheme of tings
winston churchill was the thorn in the side - we could have been left to wither on the vine
stLink to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 33
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
stalteriisok Lebensraum (living space )always was it was always what the war was about
after his excuse to start the war - poland - was successful - he was amazed that the uk joined in Β You contradict yourself in one compelling sentense. On September 3, 1939 Hitler was shocked to have found out that the British and the French declared war on him. You know what it means? That Poland was not an excuse. It was the goal. Hitler got took the bait by Stalin when he signed on the Pact just a week earlier.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 34
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
hi suvo
dont agree
poland may have been the main object but it was also the excuse - the false guards and attacks gave him the reason for his attack on poland
which as we now know was the start of the attack on the ussr
the uk and france was a suprise but only a sideshow to barbarossa
stLink to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 35
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
stalteriisok which as we now know was the start of the attack on the ussr the uk and france was a suprise but only a sideshow to barbarossaΒ Barbarossa had not even been thought about until the spring of 1940 at the earliest. Back in August 1939, when Ribbentrop was about to sign the Pact in Moscow, Germany was spending only 15% of GNP on military needs (see Y. Felshtinsky) - about the same as the UK - and "stockpiled" just enough munitions for Wehrmacht to get through the fighting for about a month (see Das Heer, Muller-Hillebrandt). This is hardly an indication of either intent or of any reasonable anticipation of an impending world war. But it is a clear indication of the fact that Hitler's invasion of Poland would not take place without the deal with Stalin.
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 36
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
The Irish president may have kept his country out of the war. But several thousand southern Irishmen voted with their feet and joined the British armed forces. Not conscripts. Volunteers.
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 37
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
B D I am aware of the stirling work done by these brave men, and of the 1000s of others who worked in British factories at the risk of death from bombs. I do not paint any people with the same brush as their Government.
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 38
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
but you can see the Germans thinking 'Oh, come on, SOMEONE'S got to succeed in invading Russia! We can't just not - I mean, we OUGHT to invade Russia. It's there, and just because it's hard, even impossible, doesn't mean we have an excuse not to do it! We'll just have to force ourselves!' Β
You have to look at the longer history of Germany (and before her Prussia) to understand the German fear of Russia.
During the Thirty Years War, Prussia had been indefensible against both sides who'd rampaged across the countryside and slaughtered vast numbers of Prussians. This became a lesson severely ingrained in the ruling family. The only way to defend herself was to acquire a defensive frontier. Eventually the Rhine region (with it's steep hills and river) was found in the West. The messy nature of the terrain left limited numbers of viable crossing points to be defended. In the East the rivers could be crossed in many places becaue the surrounding land didn't make it hard for large armies.
The push eastwards (under pre-Nazi Germans) was "defensive" in the same way that Stalin wanted to control Eastern Europe as buffer states. But where do you stop?
Add to that the idea of Lebensraum: the Nazis eventual ideal was not dissimilar to that of Pol Pot - the Germans would go back to being prosperous peasants and small scale family businesses supplying them. The grand vision of the German future had no place for the slums of the Ruhr. So land was needed for that to be realized. Throw in some history: the Teutonic Knights had carved out a Duchy among the pagan and backward slavs (in their view), and the semi-myth of the Ukraine being the ancestral homeland of the Teutons then where else would they go?
The military need and ideological need combined to make an invasion of the USSR inevitable.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 39
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
The push eastwards (under pre-Nazi Germans) was "defensive" in the same way that Stalin wanted to control Eastern Europe as buffer statesΒ Where is that coming from? Stalin ended up with controling Eastern Europe, but he never said that this is what he wanted. And what Eastern Europe was supposed to be the buffer from? Have you ever heard of Comintern? Did you ever read Comintern's program(s)? And do you think that Comintern was ever independent of Stalin?
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 40
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
And what Eastern Europe was supposed to be the buffer from?Β
Germany & the USA.
Have you ever heard of Comintern? Did you ever read Comintern's program(s)? And do you think that Comintern was ever independent of Stalin?Β
It's an article of faith among the West's Left that Stalin had no conquest ambitions to spread Stalinism abroad and his control of Eastern Europe was solely defensive against Western Imperialism. No, I don't believe it either. But it's such a common myth here that I lazily used it as an analogy.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 41
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Whilst it was true that the extent of Soviet control over Eastern Europe, particularly in states such as Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Rumania, caused by the collapse of the Wehrmacht in 1944-5 probably surprised Stalin he made no secret of his expansionist ambitions and his aim to recreate the Tsarist Empire. He partitioned Poland with Hitler in August 1939 largely along Tsarist lines, seized Bessarabia in November, attacked Finland, formerly a Tsarist province, in December and exercised his claim to the Baltic States, formally laid in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in 1940.
The Soviet Union's expansion was by no means accidental or simply a response to Operation Barbarossa.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 42
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
And what Eastern Europe was supposed to be the buffer from?Β Germany & the USA.Β Stalin did have a buffer before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Pact destroyed this buffer.
It's an article of faith among the West's Left that Stalin had no conquest ambitions to spread Stalinism abroad and his control of Eastern EuropeΒ Correct, but Comintern never limited its goals to Eastern Europe. In order to understand Stalin's stance one needs to go all the way back to the Brest-Listovsk Treaty and the "March to Berlin and Moscow" aborted in defeat at Warsaw in 1920.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 43
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
So why indeed did Germans attack Russia? Well, the war was a fake from start to finish afterall. Even a child knows, you just do not invade Russia if you wish to stay on power, you can only hit and then and run for your life...Β
I wonder? did anyone tell the millions of Russian people who were killed, or those who were uprooted losing everything in the process.
Some of the statements posted on these boards leave me speechless.
This quoted post does not deserve any answer, it sounds very much like the Holocaust denial, totally absurd.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 44
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
cloudyj In order to understand Stalin's stance one needs to go all the way back to the Brest-Listovsk Treaty and the "March to Berlin and Moscow" aborted in defeat at Warsaw in 1920.Β Let me elaborate on this, since it may look kind of cryptic without some background information. I don't know if there is an English translation of Y. Felshtinsky's book "Vozhdi V Zakonye" out there (I saw the title interpreted in English as "Big Bosses", but I think "The Made Leaders" is a more accurate translation, "Made" being the mafia initiation). This work is about the history of Bolshevik leadership. It is the absolute MUST for anybody who wants to understand the history of the 20th century, not just Russian history. The analysis of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty is a big highlight of this book. Bolsheviks were very much split over it. The "true international world revolutionaries", such as Trotsky and especially Dzershinsky, were opposed to Lenin's - prevailed at the end - position of basically giving away the farm to the Germans, even at the expense of the "German comrades". Felshtinsky explained that Lenin saw the Treaty as the only way to retain personal power and keep Moscow as the headquarters of the World Revolution. When the Red troops led by Tukhachevsky were marching on "Berlin and Moscow" in 1920, the only viable force that could - and did - stop them was the Polish army led by Pilsudsky.
Now, from Stalin's stand point, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the modified replay of Brest-Litovsk. This time, the Poles were taken care of from the get-go, however. And, as Stalin and his henchmen repeatedly stated, they were going to join the big war at the very end. They were going to liberate the oppressed masses across Europe, when the capitalist regimes are mauled by the prolonged fighting. This strategy started to go wrong by the unexpectedly fast collapse by the French and the British forces on the continent.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 45
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
I wonder? did anyone tell the millions of Russian people who were killed, or those who were uprooted losing everything in the process.
Some of the statements posted on these boards leave me speechless.
This quoted post does not deserve any answer, it sounds very much like the Holocaust denial, totally absurd.Β
Quite right. Hitler certainly didn't think it was a fake. For him the war began on 22 June 1941. Everything else had merely been the hors d'ouevres to the main course.
"You only have to kick in the door for the whole rotten structure to come crashing down"
was his words to his senior staff officers immediately before Barbarossa and certainly, had he not ordered the disastrous detour into the Ukraine which wasted several months of vital campaigning the Germans would have captured Moscow in the autumn of 1941 before it could have been adequately reinforced and before the onset of winter which would have resulted in his words at the start of the campaign being proved correct.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 46
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
For him the war began on 22 June 1941. Everything else had merely been the hors d'ouevres to the main course.Β Yet, in his letter to Mussolini written to explain the launch of Barbarossa he called this decision the most difficult decision of his life.
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 47
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Compared to the decisions to go to war in 1939 and launch the Western Offensive in May 1940 it was.
Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
-
Message 48
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 10th July 2009
Alan Compared to the decisions to go to war in 1939 and launch the Western Offensive in May 1940 it was.Β I read this differently. Hitler certainly was committed to completely undo Versailles Treaty, which the invasion of Poland would finally accomplish. In his mind, the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was the key to that. It certainly does not make sense that the man who was about to do anything beyond that would spend meager 15% of GNP on military needs in 1938-39 and provide Wehrmacht with barely enough munitions to make it to the river San embankment β smack in the middle of Poland .
Contrast and compare this with what Stalin had been up to: 1938-1940 military expenditures amounted to 26.4% of the national budget on average, with 32.6% spent in 1940 and 43.4% planned for spending in 1941, the military spending growth amounting to 39% annually (3 times as much as that of the entire production growth nation-wide). In August of 1939 Red Army has begun secret mobilization with the goal of 8.9 million troops drafted by the end of the summer of 1941. By June 1941, Red Army βwas the biggest armed force in the worldβ¦it included 5,774,200 troops, of which 4,605,300 were ground force troops, 475,700 were air force personnel, 353,800 were navy personnel, 167,600 were border guards, 171,900 were the NKVD interior troops. Ground forces had 303 divisions, 16 paratrooper brigades and 3 infantry brigades. All in all, the armed forces were equipped with 117,581 cannons and mortars, 24,488 aircraft and 25,886 tanks.β(Myth Of Unpreparedness, Vladimir Beshanov). That's the man getting ready for a big war.Link to this forum: Had Sealion succeeded, would Barbarossa have happened?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.