Ending the war with USSR

PC : Epic WW2 grand strategy game covering the European theatre.

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Time of Fury Design

marklv
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:49 pm

Re: Ending the war with USSR

Post by marklv » Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:43 pm

Razz1 wrote:And this is why we have the Option to Create Croatia and Ukraine
Yes, but there should also be an option to force a 'Vichy Russia' event as part of choosing a lenient policy towards this country. Then this could become a puppet state under the control of the Germans.

gwgardner
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2408
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:59 am

Re: Ending the war with USSR

Post by gwgardner » Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:49 pm

Did you choose a lenient policy?

marklv
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:49 pm

Re: Ending the war with USSR

Post by marklv » Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:39 pm

I did choose a lenient policy, so Russia should have surrendered more easily, should it not?

gwgardner
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2408
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:59 am

Re: Ending the war with USSR

Post by gwgardner » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:22 am

Makes sense to me, but I don't know the surrender event is currently implemented. Razz, Doom perhaps will want to look into the surrender effect of a lenient policy.

Razz1
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 3304
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:49 am
Location: USA

Re: Ending the war with USSR

Post by Razz1 » Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:54 am

I believe Policy only effects PP income and partisan activity.

gunhojr
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:44 pm

Re: Ending the war with USSR

Post by gunhojr » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:56 am

i agree with mark if you made this game true to history then ok.but since its not there should be a surender if you say its true to history then why can you build nukes for germans and other things so in a way its a game of what if's.i have taken russia though the only country i couldnt was british far east colonies it wont let me for some reason a bug which never got fixed.so taking russia mark doesnt matter you cant win game with germans.tried 5 times and just had to restart senario again.doom any time you guys going to fix that problem.

Rasputitsa
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:58 am

Re: Ending the war with USSR

Post by Rasputitsa » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:07 pm

marklv wrote:
Rasputitsa wrote:
marklv wrote: I doubt that co-operation with the Germans was an option on offer to either the Poles, or the Russians, Hitler was only interested in total victory and the absorption of much of Poland as Reich territory.

Hitler was not necessarily expecting, or requiring a Soviet surrender, he was planning to advance far enough East to bring the Ural industrial areas within bombing range, then take a defensive position to guard his new Eastern empire, the frontier defence would maintain the martial health of the nation.
Despite the loony racial views of the Nazis it was becoming obvious by 1943 that there had to be some measure of autonomy given to the states of the USSR, including Russia, if there was ever going to be a possibility for Germany to build any kind of productive 'empire' in this part of the world. This is why the Vlasov army was formed and Cossack regiments started to be created as part of the Wehrmacht. Even Himmler realised this quite early on.
This issue may be dead, but further reading, on German plans for the East, shows that autonomous States were probably not part of the plan. The 'productive empire' was to be achieved by moving German settlers into the Eastern territories, the plan (Generalplan Ost) recognised that this initial settlement, in three areas of the former Soviet Union, would displace 30-40 million people of the existing population from their land and that, without means of subsistence, these people would die. This aspect of the report was noted and it was accepted that the deaths of many millions of people was not a reason to change the plan. How much the Soviets would know of such plans is unknown, but they had sources in Germany that revealed much of the Reich's planning and Hitler had made it quite clear that compromise and negotiation were not an option.

By 1942 the plan was already being applied in parts of Poland (Zamosc region), with 100,000 people of the local population being sent to Maidanek and Auschwitz, to make way for German colonists, the plan was not completely successful, as it resulted in a huge rise in partisan activity and attacks on the incoming German settlers. Himmler persisted with the plan, against the objections from Frank, the regions governor, who was worried at the opposition that was being stirred up with the Poles, but Himmler expected that the proposed displacement policy would give a huge boost to the forced labour (Ostarbeiter) reserves, if short lived for the individuals involved. If any re-thinking was taking place in 1943, it was only because a Soviet defeat was no longer a realistic prospect and it was only military failure that stopped these plans from being more fully implemented, as the Wehrmacht could not hold on to the territories the German colonists were going to occupy. There is little doubt that if the Reich had achieved greater military success and pushed further East (to the Volga and beyond), which is happening in the game, these plans would have proceeded in the captured areas, making it clear to all, the fearful cost of surrender.

It was fight, or die, in Russia, not just for the Soviet leadership, but for most of the population, therefore, I don't think the game is that historically wrong in no Soviet surrender.

marklv
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:49 pm

Re: Ending the war with USSR

Post by marklv » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:37 am

Rasputitsa wrote: This issue may be dead, but further reading, on German plans for the East, shows that autonomous States were probably not part of the plan. The 'productive empire' was to be achieved by moving German settlers into the Eastern territories, the plan (Generalplan Ost) recognised that this initial settlement, in three areas of the former Soviet Union, would displace 30-40 million people of the existing population from their land and that, without means of subsistence, these people would die. This aspect of the report was noted and it was accepted that the deaths of many millions of people was not a reason to change the plan. How much the Soviets would know of such plans is unknown, but they had sources in Germany that revealed much of the Reich's planning and Hitler had made it quite clear that compromise and negotiation were not an option.
Well, it is estimated that 15 million Soviet civilians died of malnutrition or repression anyway during the war, so there would be no need to displace the numbers you quoted. I also very much doubt that it would have been feasible to move many German settlers into the Western parts of the USSR, even with the offer of free farmland and forced labourers to work it. I guess the most ardent Nazis would have gone, but most Germans would not have been interested in going to such remote areas far from the heart of the German Reich. Like a lot of these Nazi plans, this seems to me to have unworkable - my assumption is that a pragmatic approach would eventually have been adopted and some kind of puppet Russian state, greatly reduced in size, created. This is what Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi expert on Russia, wanted, but was opposed by Himmler and Hitler in particular.
Rasputitsa wrote:By 1942 the plan was already being applied in parts of Poland (Zamosc region), with 100,000 people of the local population being sent to Maidanek and Auschwitz, to make way for German colonists, the plan was not completely successful, as it resulted in a huge rise in partisan activity and attacks on the incoming German settlers. Himmler persisted with the plan, against the objections from Frank, the regions governor, who was worried at the opposition that was being stirred up with the Poles, but Himmler expected that the proposed displacement policy would give a huge boost to the forced labour (Ostarbeiter) reserves, if short lived for the individuals involved. If any re-thinking was taking place in 1943, it was only because a Soviet defeat was no longer a realistic prospect and it was only military failure that stopped these plans from being more fully implemented, as the Wehrmacht could not hold on to the territories the German colonists were going to occupy. There is little doubt that if the Reich had achieved greater military success and pushed further East (to the Volga and beyond), which is happening in the game, these plans would have proceeded in the captured areas, making it clear to all, the fearful cost of surrender.

It was fight, or die, in Russia, not just for the Soviet leadership, but for most of the population, therefore, I don't think the game is that historically wrong in no Soviet surrender.
What happened in Poland was on a much smaller scale and varied from one area to another. There was a substantial difference in how Polish people were treated between Gauleiters Forster and Greiser - the former accepting Poles who were willing to become Germanised, the latter adopting a purely racist approach. In the USSR there was also a certain difference in style of government between the brutal Koch in the Ukraine and the milder Kube and Lohse in Belarus and the Baltic states respectively. Therefore it's very hard to predict how the occupied USSR would have been governed in the case of a German victory, as most decisions in Nazi Germany were either taken by Hitler himself and implemented by delegation (Hitler was uninterested in detail), or devolved down to various agencies, often with conflicting interests and agendas.

Rasputitsa
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:58 am

Re: Ending the war with USSR

Post by Rasputitsa » Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:09 am

marklv wrote: Well, it is estimated that 15 million Soviet civilians died of malnutrition or repression anyway during the war, so there would be no need to displace the numbers you quoted. I also very much doubt that it would have been feasible to move many German settlers into the Western parts of the USSR, even with the offer of free farmland and forced labourers to work it. I guess the most ardent Nazis would have gone, but most Germans would not have been interested in going to such remote areas far from the heart of the German Reich. Like a lot of these Nazi plans, this seems to me to have unworkable - my assumption is that a pragmatic approach would eventually have been adopted and some kind of puppet Russian state, greatly reduced in size, created. This is what Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi expert on Russia, wanted, but was opposed by Himmler and Hitler in particular.
The point in re-opening the discussion was to indicate that Soviet surrender was not an essential part of Barbarossa, Germany had plans for Russia that did not envisage a negotiated peace. Obviously how much of this could be implemented (imposed) would depend on the degree of military success and without a quick and complete victory (advance to the Volga and establishment of the Ost wall), a more pragmatic approach became necessary.

The activities of the German State within their own borders and within the areas that they did control, leave little doubt as to what would have happened in Russia and the Eastern territories, if the Germans had achieved undisputed control and effectively won the war, autonomy for any group would have been very low on the agenda.

When General Marcks completed his initial planning for the attack on the Soviet Union in August 1940, he consulted Lt. Gen. Koestring (military attaché - Moscow ), who considered that the capture of Moscow would not result in a Soviet surrender and that resistance would continue, using the considerable industrial capacity East of the Urals. Therefore, from the beginning of the planning process it was recognised that Soviet surrender, although desirable, would not necessarily result from Barbarossa, but either way, German intentions did not require such a surrender.

The lack of Soviet surrender is therefore a likely and historical result from playing the Barbarossa scenario, leaving the player in the same situation as Germany experienced, when can you say you have won, the game mirrors history quite well. Hitler envisaged a constant conflict on the Eastern borders of his new empire, maintaining the martial strength of the Greater Reich, such things are nightmares made of.

BattlevonWar
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:25 am

Re: Ending the war with USSR

Post by BattlevonWar » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:43 am

Just started a book The Drive on Moscow: Operation Taifu and Germany's First Great Crisis of World War II by: Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson

I found it fascinating how that the strategy for the real Operation Typhoon mirrored my own strategy in my last ToF game. Encircle Moscow, destroy as much manpower as possible. That was not German Dictator's goal, his was to attack and obtain resources...this is initially... Commanders vs Dictator here and so far throughout the book I am seeing many places in the beginning at least where these conflicts are causing issues with 1941 and the outcome of the war.

The Germans never planned for a long war and were prepping their industry out west for dealing with the Western Allies(with more ships and aircraft) and retooling and putting industry toward building for land equipment obviously wasn't something they could do quickly. That or prepare for Winter... Lots of those supplies needed were not planned on, The Gamble so to speak...

I think in our game Germany has a bit too much PPs. In most games I can build 3 impressive things...A Mighty Air Force, acquire a navy free and two armies. 1 for the Allies and 1 for the Soviets. Meanwhile if you think in terms of WW2, the Germans never really had a mighty Western Front Force.

As for Soviet Surrender, if you read the book, "BOY! The Soviets hated the Germans... I couldn't reiterate that enough and I do not think they could mount much of an organized resistance once you took the Urals. Though I do not think they would ever surrender either...Ever...They hated the Germans and were treated awful by the invading Armies. We all know this... The Germans used the country for food and created such hate partisans popped up everywhere. The Germans also needed the peasant farmers to provide food as their were German food shortages so they would have to police Soviet Russia for many many many years to come. It's more of an occupation than a conquest!"

I have also heard of rumors here and there at the endless Russian manpower was a myth..that they were seriously strapped, perhaps in the future in ToF which isn't in it now there will be a Manpower Force Pool Limit. Sure others have brought this up. If I read about it in the future or someone else has I wouldn't mind it brought as people always refer to that as the deciding factor in the war in the east.

Post Reply

Return to “Time of Fury”