Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fall of France

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Toby View Post
    I take your point, I don't think I realised the extent of the purges when we did O level.....Just reading that about 30,000 officers were purged from the Red army, thats catastrophic in anybodies book.
    The numbers are huge and fell heavily on the most experienced & best educated. Of course, many were imprisoned rather than killed, and some were able to return to service. However, the impact went well beyond numbers.

    First, there was the disruption the structure of the armed forces. Without powerful advocates some of the key structures needed for the implementation of more advanced operational doctrines were either pulled apart or allowed to go into decline.

    Second was the impact on thinking. The purging of innovative thinkers had a chilling effect on those who might defend ideas that might be seen as too 'independent'. There was a similar impact on behavior. Taking the initiative suddenly seemed incredibly risky, perhaps fatal. Combine these and you create a shocking military culture.

    Finally there is the most obvious impact - replacing better trained officers with more poorly trained ones.

    The impact of all of this is clear in 1940 in Finland & 1941 against Germany. Some of the heaviest losses in 1941 were caused by Stalin deciding where to position troops defensively and then commanders who refused to retreat when they should have, losing everything. There were further purges in 1941, with hundreds of officers executed. It really wasn't until the near death experience of 1941 that Stalin allowed a select few of his senior Generals more freedom of action & the scope to challenge his decisions.

    Something worth considering when assessing the Russian military post 1941. In the previous 5 years it had lost thousands of officers, including many of its best & brightest, first through purges, then through invasion. It lost something like 4-5 million men, many of its best units & much of its best equipment. Just think about all of that for a minute, then look at the size of the offensives that were mounted in 1942 alone. The recovery is just remarkable. Because we know how the war turned out we almost take it for granted that this could happen, but it is a herculean feat. That took tremendous skill, not just military, but organizational.


    Stalin was obviously completely paranoid and probably with good reason
    Disagree. No good reason. Not in 1936. The Red Army wasn't the Wehrmacht. It wasn't an independent body that needed to be co-opted by a political party through some sort of negotiation & common set of goals. It was created by the Party. It was part of the same structures. It didn't pose a threat to Stalin in 1936. Perhaps while Trotsky was in charge, but Stalin had been weeding out potential rivals for almost a decade by 1936. First it was dozens, then hundreds, then thousands and finally millions.

    It was all about his paranoia, and in the end it cost more lives than any of his purges or famines.
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Toby View Post
      Adolf was Germany's biggest enemy in 43. Let your commanders do their job is the lesson. That coupled with an Aryan mindset completely blinded the Krauts. They could have treated the Ukrainians and Baltic countries far better as they were natural allies against Stalin. Very stupid !
      Watch the video Toby, after the war everyone in Germany fell over themselves to blame Adolf. The military was especially keen. I mean, they were the best military in the world (just ask them), so someone else had to be to blame. Unlike the Red Army, the German Army had a lot of latitude until right near the end.

      The problem with 'subject peoples' was that the Nazis didn't go to all the trouble of invading Eastern Europe to treat the locals as equals. They actually weren't that bad in the Baltics unless you were jewish. Bit messier further south, however. The problem was that Adolf was planning an empire and a lot of those locals were sort of in the way.

      Again its an interesting contrast with Stalin. Equally evil, yet there was no 'war of extermination' going the other way. The USSR beat up anyone who wasn't with the program, killed off those who were really in the way and installed some truly vile governments. Nothing good about any of that. However, he didn't set out to depopulate the place. Its about the only good thing you can say about the guy.

      I'm afraid that I can never divorce the German military from the state it served. It didn't just passively enable Hitler, it actively helped him.
      sigpic

      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
        Watch the video Toby, after the war everyone in Germany fell over themselves to blame Adolf. The military was especially keen. I mean, they were the best military in the world (just ask them), so someone else had to be to blame. Unlike the Red Army, the German Army had a lot of latitude until right near the end.

        The problem with 'subject peoples' was that the Nazis didn't go to all the trouble of invading Eastern Europe to treat the locals as equals. They actually weren't that bad in the Baltics unless you were jewish. Bit messier further south, however. The problem was that Adolf was planning an empire and a lot of those locals were sort of in the way.

        Again its an interesting contrast with Stalin. Equally evil, yet there was no 'war of extermination' going the other way. The USSR beat up anyone who wasn't with the program, killed off those who were really in the way and installed some truly vile governments. Nothing good about any of that. However, he didn't set out to depopulate the place. Its about the only good thing you can say about the guy.

        I'm afraid that I can never divorce the German military from the state it served. It didn't just passively enable Hitler, it actively helped him.
        I've got it on now. Did you ever read "SS alibi of a nation" it more or less says the same thing..where by the German people blame the SS for the atrocities that took place during Hitlers rule when in fact they were what made up the SS infrastructure.

        Right watched that, He gives a fair summation of an area which has been neglected in Western history books. I noticed when I was in the US that the book shops still had copies of books written by Manstein, Guderian etc Which is where I bought my copies.. Clearly they are useful reading but without a Soviet English version of events its very difficult to get a balanced perspective.

        As was said to me by my Grandad, "we (the allies) were pretty hopeless at war, so the Germans must have been diabolical at it"
        Last edited by Toby; 09 Jul 17,, 14:21.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Toby View Post
          From memory I was always left with the impression that Japanese tanks were inferior and unreliable and there weren't that many of them. I see what you are saying with regards to the Soviets being ahead in terms of the gun barrel and calibre of ammunition. Makes me wonder why they didn't take the next logical step and put a radio in their tanks.
          Didn't needed them at the time.You missed the point about doctrine.A Soviet tanker needs to follow the leading tank ,i.e the regimental CO in a KV1.That one at its turn only needs to go from A to B in a given amount of time.

          Radios went in use after they got bettet at manufacturing those.That does not mean they had no radios in 41.They had the highest amount of radios in 41 compared to the entire war.But they had no use for them at vehicle level
          Those who know don't speak
          He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Toby View Post
            I take your point, I don't think I realised the extent of the purges when we did O level.....Just reading that about 30,000 officers were purged from the Red army, thats catastrophic in anybodies book. Stalin was obviously completely paranoid and probably with good reason
            No.They were not 30000.Closer to 10000.From those,even less were killed.

            The Red Army of 41 had a higher proportion of graduates of military academies than the one of 36.
            Of those purged,quite a lot were freed in 1940-41,sent to luxury resorts to recover(with apologies for the mistake),then to the front,comrade.

            There was a leadership problem in the Red Army.It went from 1.1millions in 1935 to almost 6 in 41.

            In divisions,it went from ~100 to 500+.The bulk of the expansion occured after 39.
            Those who know don't speak
            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
              No.They were not 30000.Closer to 10000..
              http://universitypressblog.dept.ku.e...-army-1937-38/

              Over the next two years over 30,000 army leaders were discharged from the ranks; thousands were arrested and executions were widespread.

              http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ary-purges.htm

              The whole Red Army development program was nearly wrecked in the 1937-39 period when Stalin's paranoiac purge of Tukhachevsky and some 35,000 other high-ranking officers in the Red Army brought the whole military machine to the verge of chaos. As was the case with the entire Soviet military establishment, Soviet operational maneuver concepts and forces suffered severe damage in the late 1930s, in part because Stalin purged their creators.

              http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...s-in-the-ussr/

              He was convinced that they were plotting a coup against him. 30,000 members of the army were executed, which represented 50% of the officer corps and three out of five Marshals. Military historians have part blamed this cull of Red Army officers for the Wehrmacht’s success during the first few days of ‘Operation Barbarossa’

              Comment


              • Nevertheless,it's BS.

                Btw,30000 were half the officer corp? Muhahahahaha!!!!

                3 Marshalls?What a drama!Name one.

                And tell me a battle won by them.
                Those who know don't speak
                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                  I see any offensive use of the red army in 36 as almost certainly ending in disaster. A key part of the soviet victory in ww2 was the fact the Russians were fighting for mother russia - not Stalin. I doubt Stalin could hold together the red army if things went bad.
                  What was going to stop him? He had the biggest and most advanced air force, the best tanks, the best artillery, advanced airborne brigades, good generals.... The only Armies of merit between him and the domination of all of Europe east of the Rhine were the Poles and Romanians.

                  Questions:

                  'cutting edge artillery innovation' what exactly are you refering to? Cheap rockets on gifted trucks?
                  Not just rockets but 107/120mm mortars that would end up being copied worldwide. The 122mm M38 howitzer gave Russian divisions a signifigant range advantage over typical western 105mm and even German 150mm guns. Something we saw in action up to the 1980's when the SADF was outranged by WWII surplus Angolan M38's. This lead to the development of the 155mm G5 and G6 guns with the attendent links to iraq and Gerald Bull.

                  'Revolutionary tank concepts' They had concepts that's for sure? To me Soviet tanks were nothing special. They could have been with the proper engineering but that would slow production.
                  Being almost totally immunue to return fire and much less likely to brew up even if a hit penetrated due to the use of diesel is special.

                  'Truly stunning mastery of logistics' Are you easily impressed? I'm sure all of the 350000+ lend lease trucks were stunning when the Russians unboxed them, all shiney and new.



                  Having such a road transport fleet delivered to your ports for essentially nothing will give you a sound logistics foundation. I'm not sure which bits earn the 'truly stunning mastery' title.
                  The utter destruction of the Italian 8th Army, Bagration, the offensive to liberate the Ukrain that followed on Bagration's heels. In particular during the summer and autumn of 44 the Soviets staged several massive offensives across the depth and bredth of the front. Meanwhile, Patton ran out of gas in Northern France.... Oh let us not forget that with out France, Hitler can't invade Russia, he doesn't have enough motorized transport. He had to use captured trucks and tractors in part becuase he did not take logistics seriously and did not switch to a true war time economy until 1943.

                  The epic resistance battles you speak of are far to covered in dead russian soldiers for me. Stalin and his government didn't give a single shit about how many russian men were killed achieving his aims. What they lacked in brains they made up for with rivers of their men's blood.
                  And? Hitler walked the streets of Paris, not the Stalingrad. He toured the Arc de Triumph not the Winter Palace or Kremlin.

                  Comment


                  • Not quite so.In 1936 he would have faced all of Europe,plus the intact colonial empires.

                    In EE alone he would have faced difficult terrain and roughly equal infantry numbers.That would be Romanian,Polish and Czechoslovak armies.No walk in a park.Then there are the Italians and French...
                    Those who know don't speak
                    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                      Nevertheless,it's BS.

                      Btw,30000 were half the officer corp? Muhahahahaha!!!!

                      3 Marshalls?What a drama!Name one.

                      And tell me a battle won by them.
                      Tukhachevsky, Ygeorov and possibly Blyukher. Postwar Kulik. Kulik commanded the 4th Guards Army at Kursk, but had been demoted at that point and was no longer a marshal.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                        Nevertheless,it's BS.

                        Btw,30000 were half the officer corp? Muhahahahaha!!!!

                        3 Marshalls?What a drama!Name one.

                        And tell me a battle won by them.
                        I was showing you where I got the sources from. It explains not all were executed and many were let go after a short while

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                          Not quite so.In 1936 he would have faced all of Europe,plus the intact colonial empires.

                          In EE alone he would have faced difficult terrain and roughly equal infantry numbers.That would be Romanian,Polish and Czechoslovak armies.No walk in a park.Then there are the Italians and French...
                          The UK and France wouldn't really commit during the Russian civil war and France didn't go East for Poland, The Czechs hated the Poles but fear Germany so have everything pointed West. The Heer was small 100k professionals a few times that in freikorps militia. Bulgaria would join with the Soviets. Hungary is weak, just 7 brigades of infantry and a few of cavalry no real armor to speak of and nothing in the way of artillery reserves. Romania and Poland are the big bruisers of Eastern Europe. Yet Romania folded like a wet cloth in Bessarabia despite a large army amply supplied by artillery. The lack of armor and air force made any attempt to stand doomed. Poland also had a large army but like most of Eastern Europe was short on tanks and war planes. Oh I forgot, Italy... worst army in WWII would be an apt descriptor. It took them six months to subdue a near medieval state in Abyssinia and tiny little Greece punched them square in the nose.

                          Comment


                          • That is, simply put, hindsight.And a good deal of anachronisms.
                            The planners of the age operated under very different premises.One was the Little Entente which means Czechoslovakia,Yugoslavia and Romania.That was supposed to be backed by French armies and British everything else.
                            The French did not intervened in the Russian civil war because they were otherwise engaged.

                            Up until 38 with Munchen and 39 with France and UK sitting on their asses,nobody had reason to doubt Western resolve.

                            There is this huge mythology of the Blitzkrieg.Fact is in 1939 it almost failed.The decisive blow that broke Poland was the Soviet invasion.
                            And it was a mere accident that Manstein's plan was accepted and there was a short war in the West.Otherwise there would have been a bloody war in Flanders and the German tanks were bloodied there by the French.

                            There was nothing wrong with conventional wisdom of 1936-1940.It was logical and based on hard facts.It's only flaw was that it did not foreseen brilliance and the impossible.
                            Which,btw,we take for granted as we speak.We don't prepare for the impossible :)
                            Those who know don't speak
                            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                              That is, simply put, hindsight.And a good deal of anachronisms.
                              The planners of the age operated under very different premises.One was the Little Entente which means Czechoslovakia,Yugoslavia and Romania.That was supposed to be backed by French armies and British everything else.
                              The French did not intervened in the Russian civil war because they were otherwise engaged.

                              Up until 38 with Munchen and 39 with France and UK sitting on their asses,nobody had reason to doubt Western resolve.

                              There is this huge mythology of the Blitzkrieg.Fact is in 1939 it almost failed.The decisive blow that broke Poland was the Soviet invasion.
                              And it was a mere accident that Manstein's plan was accepted and there was a short war in the West.Otherwise there would have been a bloody war in Flanders and the German tanks were bloodied there by the French.

                              There was nothing wrong with conventional wisdom of 1936-1940.It was logical and based on hard facts.It's only flaw was that it did not foreseen brilliance and the impossible.
                              Which,btw,we take for granted as we speak.We don't prepare for the impossible :)
                              But our hindsight is 20/20. Had Stalin pulled the trigger the UK and France would not have rushed to defend Poland or Yugoslavia, let alone Romania which might as well have been landlocked due to the Montruex Convention.

                              Comment


                              • Not at all.A Soviet attack triggers most,if not all the Western fears,which led to the Cordon Sanitaire.It means a crusade against bolshevism.

                                Plus,the West tried to appease Adolf at Munich.They still went to war for Poland.

                                Ohh,by 36,heck by 38,Adolf is still a brilliant German leader.

                                Montreux was not relevant.Turkey was firmly on the Entente.
                                The Soviets of 36 were still experimenting.They had the most advanced experiments in the world,but they simply were not yet ready to beat both Romania and Poland before reinforcements and supplies start flooding.
                                Last edited by Mihais; 09 Jul 17,, 21:58.
                                Those who know don't speak
                                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X