Off Topic: German strategic aims in 1941

[Schneides42]

[Disclaimer, this has nothing to do with the game-play of PzC2 or future DLCs so ignore it if you want!]

I do like 'what if?' discussions and the debate. The discussion between Vorski, NeyLutznow, and Retributarr over German strategy in 1941 (from the DLC 1941 East Front ideation thread that I don't want to hi-jack) seems to be focused on what we see as being the German strategic aims of the invasion of the Soviet Union. Was it purely to gain access to the oil resources in the Caucasus or was it to capture control of/destroy the Soviet Union?

If the latter, then we need to go back to Clausewitz who argued that to defeat your enemy you needed to identify their 'Centre of Gravity' (CoG) and then devote all of your resources to its destruction. This CoG may be the enemy's capital, their army, an ally, etc. I think where both Napoleon and Hitler when wrong was identifying Moscow as the Russian/Soviet CoG where I think it is really the weather and geography. To this end, the Germans should have waited until the spring of '42 to start the invasion to give them enough time to seize the territory they needed (ie the resources in the Caucasus etc) and to expect a long and drawn out battle of attrition, or at least a semi-permanent hostile eastern border with a rump Asian-Russia.

I find the CoG debate a very interesting one and most people look to some physical element, ie a capital or the army but I find other CoGs to be much more relevant. For example Sun Tsu argued that the moral of the enemy is the most important thing to dislodge, as a demoralised enemy is more likely to surrender even without fighting. So let me use the US as an example. If you want to defeat the US you cannot defeat their military in a conventional battle (eg the Gulf War and invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan). So you need to target the American population's will to fight. This will result in a very long war where you may personally lose but if you or like minded forces can sustain a resistance to American military expenditure (in blood and money) then there is a strong chance the American public will get disillusioned and force a change. The obvious examples here are the American military efforts in the occupation/deployments in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't forget in Vietnam the Americans won all of the big battles against the North Vietnamese army, it was the guerilla actions of the Viet Cong (ie South Vietnamese peasants, albeit, supported by the North) that caused more damage to American moral than anything else. Even the Tet Offensive was a military victory for the US, but politically it marked the beginning of the end of American involvement in the war.

For most western countries their CoG is the strength of their alliance with the United States. Eliminate the possibility of American support for their war efforts and most countries look very exposed and vulnerable. For example, Britain would not have been able to deal with anything bigger or against a more professional military that the Argentine conscripts in the Falklands in 1982. Maintaining the American alliance has been THE main focus of Australian defence and security policy since 1942! Australia proudly states that it is the only US ally to be involved in every major American military action since 1942. This is purely to put moral pressure on the US to come to their aid militarily should Australia need help.

For the US, no one could even consider a conventional attack on the US mainland but consider the effects of Russian interference in the American political system where you are now seeing American politicians openly considering things that were absolutely unthinkable 12 years ago when Obama was elected. Again the CoG in the US is the will of the American people to support US government institutions and norms.

[RandomAttack]

[ To this end, the Germans should have waited until the spring of '42 to start the invasion to give them enough time to seize the territory they needed (ie the resources in the Caucasus etc) and to expect a long and drawn out battle of attrition, or at least a semi-permanent hostile eastern border with a rump Asian-Russia.

My understanding is that Stalin allowed a German official to "tour" some of the industrial/arms facilities he had already moved/built. The sheer magnitude of the industrial potential shocked Hitler, and notwithstanding all other issues there was a certain "use it or lose it" component as far as initiating a war with the Soviets was concerned. If virtually everyone in your country believes you are "destined" to fight them eventually, it makes little sense to allow them to build up, modernize, etc., first. There was also little doubt that Stalin would be ready to initiate hostilities in a couple of years, at a time of *his* choosing-- which must have been terrifying. So he probably took the least-worst option (in his eyes), rolled the dice, and lost. I doubt if the Germans had waited another year they would have been as successful-- but you never know.

Personally, I don't think the Germans ever had any but a tiny chance to win-- the fact that they did as well as they did was almost a miracle and relied on virtually EVERYTHING breaking their way in the early months. But that's just my opinion. But it's still my favorite theater of the war.

[NeyLutzow]

If the latter, then we need to go back to Clausewitz who argued that to defeat your enemy you needed to identify their 'Centre of Gravity' (CoG) and then devote all of your resources to its destruction. This CoG may be the enemy's capital, their army, an ally, etc. I think where both Napoleon and Hitler when wrong was identifying Moscow as the Russian/Soviet CoG where I think it is really the weather and geography. To this end, the Germans should have waited until the spring of '42 to start the invasion to give them enough time to seize the territory they needed (ie the resources in the Caucasus etc) and to expect a long and drawn out battle of attrition, or at least a semi-permanent hostile eastern border with a rump Asian-Russia.

Napoleon did not thought that taking moscow would defeat the russians the reason he went to moscow was to force the russian army(what napoleon would consider the CoG) to fight him and that way he would be able to achieve what he wanted from the begining of the invasion, a deciseve victory and after destroying the russian army peace would be possible, so in napoleon case he identified the russian 'cog' as the army. We will never now if he was right because he failed in achieving his goal of a decive victory.

Hitler also did not considered moscow as the 'cog', in Hitler opinion by taking Ukraine(food) and Caucasus(oil) the soviet economy would start to colapse and he would be able to win the war, it was his general staff that said going to moscow would win the war in the east. I tend to agree with Hitler on this point because after having read the soviet high command chat that losing moscow would be 'sad' but in no way would make soviet union lose the war I started to see this theather of operations with another lens.

[IceSerpent]

If the latter, then we need to go back to Clausewitz who argued that to defeat your enemy you needed to identify their 'Centre of Gravity' (CoG) and then devote all of your resources to its destruction. This CoG may be the enemy's capital, their army, an ally, etc. I think where both Napoleon and Hitler when wrong was identifying Moscow as the Russian/Soviet CoG where I think it is really the weather and geography. To this end, the Germans should have waited until the spring of '42 to start the invasion to give them enough time to seize the territory they needed (ie the resources in the Caucasus etc) and to expect a long and drawn out battle of attrition, or at least a semi-permanent hostile eastern border with a rump Asian-Russia.

Just waiting probably wouldn't have worked, because British were already busy kicking their military production into high gear. Concentrating on knocking UK out of the war would have better chances, albeit still being a fairly risky move.

I find the CoG debate a very interesting one and most people look to some physical element, ie a capital or the army but I find other CoGs to be much more relevant. For example Sun Tsu argued that the moral of the enemy is the most important thing to dislodge, as a demoralised enemy is more likely to surrender even without fighting. So let me use the US as an example. If you want to defeat the US you cannot defeat their military in a conventional battle (eg the Gulf War and invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan). So you need to target the American population's will to fight. This will result in a very long war where you may personally lose but if you or like minded forces can sustain a resistance to American military expenditure (in blood and money) then there is a strong chance the American public will get disillusioned and force a change. The obvious examples here are the American military efforts in the occupation/deployments in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't forget in Vietnam the Americans won all of the big battles against the North Vietnamese army, it was the guerilla actions of the Viet Cong (ie South Vietnamese peasants, albeit, supported by the North) that caused more damage to American moral than anything else. Even the Tet Offensive was a military victory for the US, but politically it marked the beginning of the end of American involvement in the war.

That's the result of "win hearts and minds" idea, or doctrine if you will. Both Stalin and Hitler generally had much better defined war goals than a never-ending war which doesn't even have a realistic victory condition, so it's unclear how either side could have targeted the enemy's will to fight. Well, Hitler actually tried that against UK with pretty lackluster results.

For the US, no one could even consider a conventional attack on the US mainland but consider the effects of Russian interference in the American political system where you are now seeing American politicians openly considering things that were absolutely unthinkable 12 years ago when Obama was elected. Again the CoG in the US is the will of the American people to support US government institutions and norms.

What sort of unthinkable things? The problems we're having started way before 2008 - this crap has been going on for the last 25 years at least. It simply got progressively worse over the years, so it's more visible to the rest of the world now.

[adiekmann]

The strategy of where to concentrate their attack is irrelevant. They were destined to lose either way. While earning my degree in history, one of the courses that I took was The History of the Soviet Union. I learned how even high ranking Soviet officials admitted after the war that Hitler's genocidal racist attitude and agenda is really what saved them.

You have to remember how much of a major a**hole Stalin was and its debatable whether who was worse, him or Hitler. Most of the people hated him. When the Germans first entered the USSR they welcomed them as liberators, especially in Ukraine. Their regime was as unstable if not more so than that of the czarist Russia. Look at how the Germans emerged victorious on the Eastern front in that conflict. Did they completely defeat the Russian army and capture Moscow? The Caucasus? No. It was from political instability and dissatisfaction with their government and power structure.

If they had ditched the genocidal Nazi doctrine and not immediately begun to murder millions of prisoners and civilians, there would have been no will to resist and fight so desperately as they eventually did. But the Nazi policy towards untermenschen gave them little choice, and then they were at least fighting for their homeland and families because Nazi rule would have been worse than what they were experiencing under Stalin, as sad as that was.

This was not just 20/20 hindsight either. Field Marshal von Kleist actually argued for this before the invasion. It is really the only way the Germans ultimately could have won the war in the East, as liberators, not as monsters.

[Schneides42]

Thanks for the engagement with this folks. I don't have an issue with any of the comments here as you all raise valid arguments. It is very interesting to see the different ideas and arguments over this both in regards to different ideas on a CoG or indeed whether Nazi Ideology made it an unwinnable proposition from the start.

The argument about the fear of the Soviets being stronger in '42 is certainly one that echoed the criticism of British appeasement of Hitler in 1938 and we can all see the value of those Czech tanks! I still think the shear size of the Soviet Union and the harsh winters were the keys to its survival more than anything else, but that is just my opinion

What sort of unthinkable things? The problems we're having started way before 2008 - this crap has been going on for the last 25 years at least. It simply got progressively worse over the years, so it's more visible to the rest of the world now.

IceSerpent, I thought long and hard about adding this contemporary example as I don't want to get into a US politics debate. Yes it has gotten worse over the years and prior to Trump I would agree on the progressive nature of this deterioration but with Trump there has been a spike in this with elements contained in the fringes allowed to enter the mainstream (eg the rise of groups like the Proud Boys and support for the notion of a Deep State seeking to undermine US democracy). In the current environment do you think Nixon would have resigned? Al Gore did concede defeat in 2000 and both George H.W. and George W. Bush oversaw very friendly and cooperative transitions.

My point was more that you can't defeat the US through conventional military means but rather you need to destroy what American means. There may be better examples and all that is occurring now politically will eventually have a correcting trend to it.

[Retributarr]

What sort of unthinkable things? The problems we're having started way before 2008 - this crap has been going on for the last 25 years at least. It simply got progressively worse over the years, so it's more visible to the rest of the world now.

IceSerpent, I thought long and hard about adding this contemporary example as I don't want to get into a US politics debate. Yes it has gotten worse over the years and prior to Trump I would agree on the progressive nature of this deterioration but with Trump there has been a spike in this with elements contained in the fringes allowed to enter the mainstream (eg the rise of groups like the Proud Boys and support for the notion of a Deep State seeking to undermine US democracy). In the current environment do you think Nixon would have resigned? Al Gore did concede defeat in 2000 and both George H.W. and George W. Bush oversaw very friendly and cooperative transitions.

My point was more that you can't defeat the US through conventional military means but rather you need to destroy what American means. There may be better examples and all that is occurring now politically will eventually have a correcting trend to it.

I have no-proof of any kind, but... I have studied this 'Trump-Situation' for quite a while... so I have some fanciful inconclusive conclusions... right or wrong!.

Fact!: "Trump" went to Russia to host a beauty contest of sorts... and even mentioned walking into the women's preparation dressing room to have a look at them when they were still mostly undressed [Why would they let him do that?]. Later he stayed at a hotel or whatever perhaps with even Putin's direct assistance. At this point Putin knew that Trump was going to run for 'President' of the United States or was already in the process of doing sol.

It was after this over-night stay... that 'Trump' then had a life changing attitude towards Russia and Putin. Why would that be???... perhaps 'Putin' sent some of those glamorous Russian models to visit Trump for his over-night stay?. This would have been a perfect opportunity to record Trump with these women. Hence!... now Putin would have leverage over Trump.

Now Putin could control Trump if and when he became president... to do Putin's bidding. Yes!... " to destroy what American means"... to get it out of Russia's way.
… to get the USA to pack up and leave the Middle East... to pull-out and abandon Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria as well as East Africa so that Russian influence with its allies could take over the region.

Why do you think that Trump will not respond to Russia's 'Cyber-Attack-Hacking' of the United States Military and such... as well as the brazen interference in the U.S. elections and that he also refuses to blame Russia for anything at all. He is probably ordered by Putin to destroy democracy in the U.S. as well as to de-stabilise it as much as possible so that Putin can do what he wants without U.S. military interference... to also have Trump undermine the elections... and to even use military force to regain the Presidency!... in order to continue to do Putin's bidding.

Putin is bent on controlling the Middle East... and perhaps even some or all of Europe if he can get the U.S.A. out of the picture.

[George_Parr]

The strategy of where to concentrate their attack is irrelevant. They were destined to lose either way. While earning my degree in history, one of the courses that I took was The History of the Soviet Union. I learned how even high ranking Soviet officials admitted after the war that Hitler's genocidal racist attitude and agenda is really what saved them.

You have to remember how much of a major a**hole Stalin was and its debatable whether who was worse, him or Hitler. Most of the people hated him. When the Germans first entered the USSR they welcomed them as liberators, especially in Ukraine. Their regime was as unstable if not more so than that of the czarist Russia. Look at how the Germans emerged victorious on the Eastern front in that conflict. Did they completely defeat the Russian army and capture Moscow? The Caucasus? No. It was from political instability and dissatisfaction with their government and power structure.

If they had ditched the genocidal Nazi doctrine and not immediately begun to murder millions of prisoners and civilians, there would have been no will to resist and fight so desperately as they eventually did. But the Nazi policy towards untermenschen gave them little choice, and then they were at least fighting for their homeland and families because Nazi rule would have been worse than what they were experiencing under Stalin, as sad as that was.

This was not just 20/20 hindsight either. Field Marshal von Kleist actually argued for this before the invasion. It is really the only way the Germans ultimately could have won the war in the East, as liberators, not as monsters.

I agree, the best bet to beat the Soviet Union would have been to cause its internal collapse by at least pretending that you were coming to liberate the people from Soviet rule. It's not like they had to deviate from their original goals for that. Instead of trying to beat an enemy military and exterminating people at the same time, they just as easily could have made sure to secure victory first and then go on with their murderous ways. Both are easier to accomplish when done on their on. Do the first thing, and you will have an easier fight, and once that fight has been won, you have an easier time doing the mass killings, because there is no coherent force standing in your way. One has to be thankful that this didn't seem to cross their minds or just wasn't acceptable due to their ideology.

Then again, there are also some arguments against that. The Nazis, just like Napoleon back in the day, suffered from the same problem: they needed to live from the land they took, and that runs counter to treating the people as if you wanted to liberate them.

As for the general goals: the plans always asked for the destruction of the Red Army first and foremost. It was not about taking a specific target. This is also true for Case Blue, which asked for the destruction of the Soviet armies in the Don bend, which also didn't work out due to 4th Panzer Army being pulled away from the approach to Stalingrad for some time, allowing for Soviet armies to escape an encirclement and setting up a proper defense of Stalingrad.
The main issues of Barbarossa were that they didn't succeed in destroying the Red Army entirely before some parts could slip away, allowing the Soviets to build up a decent front again, and more importantly, that secret intelligence was way off on their estimates on Soviet military strength. The Germans basically did kill or capture as many soldiers as intelligence had indicated, but there were just a whole lot more around. If the intelligence had been correct (as in: their numbers were correct, not in: they had given the actual numbers) the Soviets probably would have lost.

[adiekmann]

The strategy of where to concentrate their attack is irrelevant. They were destined to lose either way. While earning my degree in history, one of the courses that I took was The History of the Soviet Union. I learned how even high ranking Soviet officials admitted after the war that Hitler's genocidal racist attitude and agenda is really what saved them.

You have to remember how much of a major a**hole Stalin was and its debatable whether who was worse, him or Hitler. Most of the people hated him. When the Germans first entered the USSR they welcomed them as liberators, especially in Ukraine. Their regime was as unstable if not more so than that of the czarist Russia. Look at how the Germans emerged victorious on the Eastern front in that conflict. Did they completely defeat the Russian army and capture Moscow? The Caucasus? No. It was from political instability and dissatisfaction with their government and power structure.

If they had ditched the genocidal Nazi doctrine and not immediately begun to murder millions of prisoners and civilians, there would have been no will to resist and fight so desperately as they eventually did. But the Nazi policy towards untermenschen gave them little choice, and then they were at least fighting for their homeland and families because Nazi rule would have been worse than what they were experiencing under Stalin, as sad as that was.

This was not just 20/20 hindsight either. Field Marshal von Kleist actually argued for this before the invasion. It is really the only way the Germans ultimately could have won the war in the East, as liberators, not as monsters.

I agree, the best bet to beat the Soviet Union would have been to cause its internal collapse by at least pretending that you were coming to liberate the people from Soviet rule. It's not like they had to deviate from their original goals for that. Instead of trying to beat an enemy military and exterminating people at the same time, they just as easily could have made sure to secure victory first and then go on with their murderous ways. Both are easier to accomplish when done on their on. Do the first thing, and you will have an easier fight, and once that fight has been won, you have an easier time doing the mass killings, because there is no coherent force standing in your way. One has to be thankful that this didn't seem to cross their minds or just wasn't acceptable due to their ideology.

I know what you mean, but my point was the Nazi racial doctrine was counterproductive, to say nothing of the moral issues of it. Even if they "faked it" and took control as liberators, and then showed their true colors by implementing their genocidal polices, it still would have slowly cost them.

If you look where partisan resistance was the strongest, it was in those countries where the occupation was most severe and that was largely in those places where the Nazis considered the people to be...subhuman. Namely Yugoslavia, Poland, Soviet Union. And where there was little to no resistance, at least relatively speaking, like Denmark, was where the civil population was treated the best. But the one comes before the other. If the Nazis for some reason treated the Danes like they did the Poles, for instance, you bet that there would have been insurgencies there as well even though in such a small country it would have been difficult.

Now back to the Soviet Union. That would have been (and was!) difficult because of the vastness of the country. Many skeptical German generals were deeply concerned upon hearing of Hitler's plans for Barbarossa with the vastness of size/depth and population of the Soviet Union which was triple that of Germany's. This gave them the ability to endure severe losses and the room to keep fighting which is exactly what happened and so too to Napoleon in part. The Poles fought hard; they would have continued to do the same if their country was as big and had the population that the USSR did. So really, the only way to have taken out the USSR without at least a protracted guerrilla war like Vietnam, was to not give them a reason to fight at all. Even after you won the battlefield.

Then again, there are also some arguments against that. The Nazis, just like Napoleon back in the day, suffered from the same problem: they needed to live from the land they took, and that runs counter to treating the people as if you wanted to liberate them.


As for the general goals: the plans always asked for the destruction of the Red Army first and foremost. It was not about taking a specific target. This is also true for Case Blue, which asked for the destruction of the Soviet armies in the Don bend, which also didn't work out due to 4th Panzer Army being pulled away from the approach to Stalingrad for some time, allowing for Soviet armies to escape an encirclement and setting up a proper defense of Stalingrad.
The main issues of Barbarossa were that they didn't succeed in destroying the Red Army entirely before some parts could slip away, allowing the Soviets to build up a decent front again, and more importantly, that secret intelligence was way off on their estimates on Soviet military strength. The Germans basically did kill or capture as many soldiers as intelligence had indicated, but there were just a whole lot more around. If the intelligence had been correct (as in: their numbers were correct, not in: they had given the actual numbers) the Soviets probably would have lost.

All the rest is really short vs. long term success or failure, I would argue. The fundamental core of the problem is what I outlined already above. Sun Tzu would have been pulling his hair out if he was in Nazi high command and the stupidity of the Nazis policies and their fallout. But that is why they are villainized in film and such to the extent that they are even if many or most Nazis were not exactly the caricatures that they are popularly portrayed as in Captain America or Indiana Jones films.

Armies in WWI and II did not "live off land." That was in a era long before and yes, logistics was a nightmare for the German because of the size of the country, the weather, railroad gauges, etc. All the the stuff most here probably already know. Rommel had the similar issue in N. Africa the more successful he was. Moreover, even things like food, if you want to take the crops from occupied lands, you need the cooperation of the population. Murdering them doesn't really motivate them into farming the land for the enemy. For natural resources, on the other hand, yes. But there too you need stability to procure it and transport it back to primarily Germany to use.

[IceSerpent]

You have to remember how much of a major a**hole Stalin was and its debatable whether who was worse, him or Hitler. Most of the people hated him. When the Germans first entered the USSR they welcomed them as liberators, especially in Ukraine. Their regime was as unstable if not more so than that of the czarist Russia. Look at how the Germans emerged victorious on the Eastern front in that conflict. Did they completely defeat the Russian army and capture Moscow? The Caucasus? No. It was from political instability and dissatisfaction with their government and power structure.

If they had ditched the genocidal Nazi doctrine and not immediately begun to murder millions of prisoners and civilians, there would have been no will to resist and fight so desperately as they eventually did. But the Nazi policy towards untermenschen gave them little choice, and then they were at least fighting for their homeland and families because Nazi rule would have been worse than what they were experiencing under Stalin, as sad as that was.

This was not just 20/20 hindsight either. Field Marshal von Kleist actually argued for this before the invasion. It is really the only way the Germans ultimately could have won the war in the East, as liberators, not as monsters.

That's debatable. Granted, it would certainly be easier to win if Germans were not so keen on whacking civilian population, but nowhere near the level of certain victory. There were not that many people who hated the Soviet regime enough to switch sides - Baltic countries and western Ukraine are really the only places that come to mind. WW I situation was different, because Russia was already in the middle of an uprising / political upheaval and fighting what was generally viewed as an offensive war was not a very popular thing. Besides, the way Germany started Barbarossa royally pissed off a lot of people. Surprise attack on a supposedly friendly country that they had a recently signed non-aggression pact with was pretty much guaranteed to generate a lot of will to resist.

IceSerpent, I thought long and hard about adding this contemporary example as I don't want to get into a US politics debate. Yes it has gotten worse over the years and prior to Trump I would agree on the progressive nature of this deterioration but with Trump there has been a spike in this with elements contained in the fringes allowed to enter the mainstream (eg the rise of groups like the Proud Boys and support for the notion of a Deep State seeking to undermine US democracy). In the current environment do you think Nixon would have resigned? Al Gore did concede defeat in 2000 and both George H.W. and George W. Bush oversaw very friendly and cooperative transitions.

I don't really want to go too deep into US politics either. What I was trying to say is that there was no spike of any kind, the whole thing has been fairly linear all along. I.e. we've always had fringe neo-nazi groups, we've always had some "deep state" or simply corrupt folks who tried to mess with elections from time to time (not always presidential elections, but still), and we've always had some left-wing groups attempting to burn down their own neighborhood. The only thing that changed (and dangerously so, in my opinion) is that way back in the mid-to-late 90s left wing started to shift their agenda towards some weird form of global socialism, which eventually led to right wing thinking of left wing as traitors and left wing thinking of right wing as nazis. It's difficult to pinpoint when exactly that line was crossed, but it definitely happened way before Trump was elected - maybe sometime during Obama administration, maybe even earlier. The notion that prior to 2016 conservatives liked progressives and vice versa is a complete fairy tale.

[adiekmann]

You have to remember how much of a major a**hole Stalin was and its debatable whether who was worse, him or Hitler. Most of the people hated him. When the Germans first entered the USSR they welcomed them as liberators, especially in Ukraine. Their regime was as unstable if not more so than that of the czarist Russia. Look at how the Germans emerged victorious on the Eastern front in that conflict. Did they completely defeat the Russian army and capture Moscow? The Caucasus? No. It was from political instability and dissatisfaction with their government and power structure.

If they had ditched the genocidal Nazi doctrine and not immediately begun to murder millions of prisoners and civilians, there would have been no will to resist and fight so desperately as they eventually did. But the Nazi policy towards untermenschen gave them little choice, and then they were at least fighting for their homeland and families because Nazi rule would have been worse than what they were experiencing under Stalin, as sad as that was.

This was not just 20/20 hindsight either. Field Marshal von Kleist actually argued for this before the invasion. It is really the only way the Germans ultimately could have won the war in the East, as liberators, not as monsters.

That's debatable. Granted, it would certainly be easier to win if Germans were not so keen on whacking civilian population, but nowhere near the level of certain victory. There were not that many people who hated the Soviet regime enough to switch sides - Baltic countries and western Ukraine are really the only places that come to mind. WW I situation was different, because Russia was already in the middle of an uprising / political upheaval and fighting what was generally viewed as an offensive war was not a very popular thing. Besides, the way Germany started Barbarossa royally pissed off a lot of people. Surprise attack on a supposedly friendly country that they had a recently signed non-aggression pact with was pretty much guaranteed to generate a lot of will to resist.

IceSerpent, I thought long and hard about adding this contemporary example as I don't want to get into a US politics debate. Yes it has gotten worse over the years and prior to Trump I would agree on the progressive nature of this deterioration but with Trump there has been a spike in this with elements contained in the fringes allowed to enter the mainstream (eg the rise of groups like the Proud Boys and support for the notion of a Deep State seeking to undermine US democracy). In the current environment do you think Nixon would have resigned? Al Gore did concede defeat in 2000 and both George H.W. and George W. Bush oversaw very friendly and cooperative transitions.

I don't really want to go too deep into US politics either. What I was trying to say is that there was no spike of any kind, the whole thing has been fairly linear all along. I.e. we've always had fringe neo-nazi groups, we've always had some "deep state" or simply corrupt folks who tried to mess with elections from time to time (not always presidential elections, but still), and we've always had some left-wing groups attempting to burn down their own neighborhood. The only thing that changed (and dangerously so, in my opinion) is that way back in the mid-to-late 90s left wing started to shift their agenda towards some weird form of global socialism, which eventually led to right wing thinking of left wing as traitors and left wing thinking of right wing as nazis. It's difficult to pinpoint when exactly that line was crossed, but it definitely happened way before Trump was elected - maybe sometime during Obama administration, maybe even earlier. The notion that prior to 2016 conservatives liked progressives and vice versa is a complete fairy tale.

You make a good point, and yes, it is debatable since we can never really know the answers to any of these "what ifs." However, I disagree with your assessment of the level of loyalty of the average Soviet to the regime. Not from the readings I can remember back in my college days. Universities (in the US at least) generally don't like to do military history, so all of this is really from a social-political perspective. Hating the Soviet regime or not, and willing to die for it are two different things. But nonetheless, you do make some very good points on the differences between WWI and Barbarossa.

But consider this: What drove the Soviet soldier to fight so hard against the Germans? Loyalty to the regime or communist ideology? Anger over their betrayal of the non-aggression pact? No. It was that the nature and brutality of the aggressor that gave them no other option. Consider also how few prisoners the German took after the first few months. Yes, there weren't the same giant encirclement battles that lead to them, but I would also argue it was because of the knowledge that surrender probably meant certain death anyway by 1942.

I don't think patriotism can explain it all away. Look at the Italians in WW2. Were they not just as patriotic towards their country?

[IceSerpent]

You make a good point, and yes, it is debatable since we can never really know the answers to any of these "what ifs." However, I disagree with your assessment of the level of loyalty of the average Soviet to the regime. Not from the readings I can remember back in my college days. Universities (in the US at least) generally don't like to do military history, so all of this is really from a social-political perspective. Hating the Soviet regime or not, and willing to die for it are two different things. But nonetheless, you do make some very good points on the differences between WWI and Barbarossa.

But consider this: What drove the Soviet soldier to fight so hard against the Germans? Loyalty to the regime or communist ideology? Anger over their betrayal of the non-aggression pact? No. It was that the nature and brutality of the aggressor that gave them no other option. Consider also how few prisoners the German took after the first few months. Yes, there weren't the same giant encirclement battles that lead to them, but I would also argue it was because of the knowledge that surrender probably meant certain death anyway by 1942.

I don't think patriotism can explain it all away. Look at the Italians in WW2. Were they not just as patriotic towards their country?

It's more complicated than that. I think there were quite a few different factors in play actually, and I am not certain if it's even possible to weigh one over another. A lot of folks were very loyal to the regime / ideology. One can even say blindly loyal, even remaining so after being hurt by the regime in some way. A lot of folks were simply patriotic to the country itself, regardless of the regime, and willing to fight against any foreign aggressor. There was also anger about the nature of the attack - more about attacking without declaring war than about breaking a pact, it was similar sentiment to how US population reacted to the attack on Pearl Harbor. During the first half of the war it was fairly common for kids to lie about their age in order to get enlisted, so the will to fight was there from the very beginning. Of course there were also enough people who hated the regime to form a whole army willing to fight for Germans (Vlasov's "Russian Liberation Army"), so there's that.
Then there was a thing about being a POW or even just staying on occupied territory resulting in an "all expenses paid" trip to GULAG afterwards, assuming that the person in question survived the ordeal. Not to mention NKVD units deployed behind the regular troops for the sole purpose of shooting whoever tries to run away from the battlefield. Naturally, you're right about the brutality - once the scope of atrocities became known, the whole hell broke lose. That didn't happen right away though, it took some time for information to trickle back through the front lines and the full extent was not known until Soviet army got to the first concentration camp - either Majdanek or Treblinka, I think.

[Retributarr]

Now!!!...Carrying on further with the "Re-Trumplican" 'Trumpers'... currently working along with 'Trumps "Putin-controlled-agenda":

In a previous post... I surmised how "Trump" was how and now being able to be controlled by "Vladimir-Putin"... but did not mention the other 'Obvious-Disaterous-Consequences' of such 'Control'.

If "Putin" would or could gain "Control" of the 'Middle-East'... he should also then have little difficulty in the furtherance of finally controlling 'Egypt' as well. Upon that taking place... "Putin" would then have "full-control" of the "Suez-Canal"[Controlling Commerce and Trade]... as well as now having "full-control" of the "Oil-Fields" in the 'Middle-East'. This would then put the 'Heavy-Hardship and Hammer' to Europe... to force them to "SUBMIT" to 'Communism' and "Putins-Will".

With the 'Re-Trumplicans' and "Trump" controlling the U.S. Government... and "Trumps" subservience and 'Obesiance' to "Putin"... this situation would have little difficulty in taking place.

[Edmon]

Please avoid talking about current day politics guys. It never ends well. Ever.

.

Otherwise, really interesting thread, please carry on .

[Buffalohump]

Please avoid talking about current day politics guys. It never ends well. Ever.

.

Otherwise, really interesting thread, please carry on .

Amen!