Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Obdicut posted:

What the gently caress does this mean?

They initiated Operation Torch because Operation SledgeHammer "would probably be disastrous". A second front was desired to exhaust Germany and the UK-US by having them fight each other, which was kind of true if you think about the balkans and how rapidly Stalin ate it.

Wasn't done writing, was in process of editing.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

steinrokkan
Apr 2, 2011



Soiled Meat

LeoMarr posted:

A second front was desired to exhaust Germany and the UK-US by having them fight each other, which was kind of true if you think about the balkans and how rapidly Stalin ate it.

Wasn't done writing, was in process of editing.

I don't think it can be reasonably said that making the capitalists fight each other was Stalin's main concern after the fall of France. That and Barbarossa threw proletarian fantasies into disarray, and made material survival and relief of Russia's strain the main focal point.

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"

LeoMarr posted:

They initiated Operation Torch because Operation SledgeHammer "would probably be disastrous". A second front was desired to exhaust Germany and the UK-US by having them fight each other, which was kind of true if you think about the balkans and how rapidly Stalin ate it.

Wasn't done writing, was in process of editing.

you're not making a drat lick of sense.

Stalin wanted a second front for the totally normal and straightforward reason any person in his position would want a second front: to take some of the German military strength away.

This isn't rocket surgery.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Cerebral Bore posted:

I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. The only thing I can conclude is that you seem to be very confused about how WW2-era militaries work because you claim that mobilizing your military forces while surrounded by hostile powers and while two huge-rear end wars are going on in the neighbourhood is indicative of some kind of master plan for world conquest rather than a reasonable precaution.

"

If a war does break out, we will not sit with folded arms – we will have to take the field, but we will be last to do so. And we shall do so in order to throw the decisive load on the scale"

Which "two massive wars" were going on in 1939? Because as I recall one of those "Massive wars" was a war in which the USSR was involved in. Also you missed the point where I spoke of the fact that the USSR was in an offensive positioning and not a defensive one. Your statement would work if the USSR was actually preparing a defense to stop Germany. Except they weren't. This would be like saying that Germany amassing on the Low countries/France was a reasonable precaution against French aggression.

Soviet units were also outfitted with maps and phrasebooks for german occupied territory. What is the point of that if you are merely defensive?

Oh and this is a lovely quote for a "defensive" formation

"the ultimate victory of socialism... can only be achieved on an international scale"

Obdicut posted:

you're not making a drat lick of sense.

Stalin wanted a second front for the totally normal and straightforward reason any person in his position would want a second front: to take some of the German military strength away.

This isn't rocket surgery.

Stalin was winning regardless of a second front or not. However pulling german units away and exhausting both Britain/US and Germany was beneficial to Stalin yes. However even with the knowledge that the UK/US did not have enough landing craft in 1941 to mount a full scale invasion Stalin still wanted this. Do you really think Stalin gave a poo poo if the UK/US Suceeded in their offensive? Tell me, who would benefit more from a disaster at D-Day. Stalin or Hitler.


steinrokkan posted:

I don't think it can be reasonably said that making the capitalists fight each other was Stalin's main concern after the fall of France. That and Barbarossa threw proletarian fantasies into disarray, and made material survival and relief of Russia's strain the main focal point.

I don't think you realize that pre-war soviet doctrine was Marxist-Leninism, in that capitalism will be overthrown through communist revolution.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Dec 10, 2015

WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Merging,

WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Dec 10, 2015

WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Merging a triple post.

Cerebral Bore
Apr 21, 2010


Fun Shoe

LeoMarr posted:

"

If a war does break out, we will not sit with folded arms – we will have to take the field, but we will be last to do so. And we shall do so in order to throw the decisive load on the scale"

Which "two massive wars" were going on in 1939? Because as I recall one of those "Massive wars" was a war in which the USSR was involved in. Also you missed the point where I spoke of the fact that the USSR was in an offensive positioning and not a defensive one. Your statement would work if the USSR was actually preparing a defense to stop Germany. Except they weren't. This would be like saying that Germany amassing on the Low countries/France was a reasonable precaution against French aggression.

Soviet units were also outfitted with maps and phrasebooks for german occupied territory. What is the point of that if you are merely defensive?

Oh and this is a lovely quote for a "defensive" formation

"the ultimate victory of socialism... can only be achieved on an international scale"

So you have literally no idea what you're talking about, gotcha. I don't really see why I have to explain this, but in the age of total war if you are attacked, you eventually will have to cross over into the aggressor's land in order to finish the fight. As ample evidence shows, the Soviet strategy was to blunt the initial German attack and then counterattack quickly in order to cut off the German spearheads. This kind of necessitates forces at the border. However, it isn't some kind of slam-dunk evidence that Stalin was going to start a war in 1942, or whatever the latest revisionist claptrap claims.

LeoMarr posted:

Stalin was winning regardless of a second front or not. However pulling german units away and exhausting both Britain/US and Germany was beneficial to Stalin yes. However even with the knowledge that the UK/US did not have enough landing craft in 1941 to mount a full scale invasion Stalin still wanted this. Do you really think Stalin gave a poo poo if the UK/US Suceeded in their offensive? Tell me, who would benefit more from a disaster at D-Day. Stalin or Hitler.

Hitler, because the USSR was already in a shambles. Also I'm sure that "exhausting both Britain/US and Germany" so that the USSR could just conquer all of Europe was totally on top of Stalin's priority list. They were in an excellent position to do that, what with the most productive and populous areas of the country burnt to the ground and after suffering millions of casualties. A dozen lost UK/US divisions are totally comparable to that.

All of your claims are nonsense, and are easily refuted by a casual glance at the documentary evidence. Stop buying into dumb conspiracy theories, please.

steinrokkan
Apr 2, 2011



Soiled Meat

LeoMarr posted:

I don't think you realize that pre-war soviet doctrine was Marxist-Leninism, in that capitalism will be overthrown through communist revolution.

Yes, but I don't think you realize that Stalin was forced to make short term decisions that ran seemingly against this doctrine, but were necessary to ensure the Soviet Union would survive in a shape to play a role in international politics. Stalin won the war because he was ultimately able to slip out of the mindset of 1938 or even of June 1941, and turn towards pure pragmatism.

Cerebral Bore
Apr 21, 2010


Fun Shoe

steinrokkan posted:

Yes, but I don't think you realize that Stalin was forced to make short term decisions that ran seemingly against this doctrine, but were necessary to ensure the Soviet Union would survive in a shape to play a role in international politics. Stalin won the war because he was ultimately able to slip out of the mindset of 1938 or even of June 1941, and turn towards pure pragmatism.

I don't think that he realizes that Stalin's main policy always was Socialism in One Country, and that he literally had people shot for advocating a spread of the revolution through force of arms.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Cerebral Bore posted:

So you have literally no idea what you're talking about, gotcha. I don't really see why I have to explain this, but in the age of total war if you are attacked, you eventually will have to cross over into the aggressor's land in order to finish the fight. As ample evidence shows, the Soviet strategy was to blunt the initial German attack and then counterattack quickly in order to cut off the German spearheads. This kind of necessitates forces at the border. However, it isn't some kind of slam-dunk evidence that Stalin was going to start a war in 1942, or whatever the latest revisionist claptrap claims.

So why is it then that these units didn't have maps of their own territory? You do realize that Military maps are topographic right? You can't use them in any other place other than the designated theater. Those maps had little to no reference to lines of defense, retreating orders or fallback points.

And I'm actually glad you show your lack of understanding formations by stating that I said forces at the border meant offensive.

There is a difference between offensive and defensive border positioning. It's safe to say that French forces at the Maginot line were defensive and did not plan on marching on Berlin.



So why did Stalin enforce a 2 year draft in 1939 if he was planning for a defensive war? This would mean that soldiers of the USSR would have to enter war in 1 September 1941 or be released. (The draft started on 1, September 1939.)

WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Dec 11, 2015

steinrokkan
Apr 2, 2011



Soiled Meat

Cerebral Bore posted:

I don't think that he realizes that Stalin's main policy always was Socialism in One Country, and that he literally had people shot for advocating a spread of the revolution through force of arms.

I think he is right in the specific context of the years before 1941 that Stalin wanted Germany and France to fight a war that would allow his offensive forces to sweep through Central Europe and at the very least substantially strengthen Soviet influence.

He's obviously wrong in thinking that this ambition survived Hitler's visit to Paris.

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"

LeoMarr posted:

Stalin was winning regardless of a second front or not. However pulling german units away and exhausting both Britain/US and Germany was beneficial to Stalin yes. However even with the knowledge that the UK/US did not have enough landing craft in 1941 to mount a full scale invasion Stalin still wanted this. Do you really think Stalin gave a poo poo if the UK/US Suceeded in their offensive? Tell me, who would benefit more from a disaster at D-Day. Stalin or Hitler.

I have never run into this conspiracy theory before, sorry that it's taking me a little while to get to grips with it.

The simplest possible explanation is that he wanted to have some pressure taken off of him, that this is an obvious military good thing.

You have decided to complicate this with an idea that he wanted the US/UK to 'exhaust' themselves. The US wasn't going to be exhausted, even by a failure at D-Day. The US never showed any signs of remotely being inclined to throw in the towel at any point, and they weren't being materially stretched, either. The war was not bad for the US economy--it really limited what was available in the civilian market--and it was spurring enormous scientific advances for the US that the Russians knew they were not keeping pace with. The USSR, especially if they retained the slightest shred of actual Marxist theoretical grounding, would want the capitalist countries to go back to being capitalists and stop being command economies with extreme nationalism.

Really simply: Why not just the obvious explanation that if you're fighting someone of course you loving want a second front?

Why is that not sufficient?

Raskolnikov38
Mar 3, 2007

We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

LeoMarr posted:

"

If a war does break out, we will not sit with folded arms – we will have to take the field, but we will be last to do so. And we shall do so in order to throw the decisive load on the scale"

Which "two massive wars" were going on in 1939? Because as I recall one of those "Massive wars" was a war in which the USSR was involved in. Also you missed the point where I spoke of the fact that the USSR was in an offensive positioning and not a defensive one. Your statement would work if the USSR was actually preparing a defense to stop Germany. Except they weren't. This would be like saying that Germany amassing on the Low countries/France was a reasonable precaution against French aggression.

Soviet units were also outfitted with maps and phrasebooks for german occupied territory. What is the point of that if you are merely defensive?

Oh and this is a lovely quote for a "defensive" formation

"the ultimate victory of socialism... can only be achieved on an international scale"


Stalin was winning regardless of a second front or not. However pulling german units away and exhausting both Britain/US and Germany was beneficial to Stalin yes. However even with the knowledge that the UK/US did not have enough landing craft in 1941 to mount a full scale invasion Stalin still wanted this. Do you really think Stalin gave a poo poo if the UK/US Suceeded in their offensive? Tell me, who would benefit more from a disaster at D-Day. Stalin or Hitler.


I don't think you realize that pre-war soviet doctrine was Marxist-Leninism, in that capitalism will be overthrown through communist revolution.

lmao You're conflating political propaganda with actual military planning. Also holy poo poo the red army had German phrasebooks and maps of territory across the border? Why it's almost as if they realized that they would be fighting Germany at some point and planned to launch a counter-offensive if attacked!

E: Also its entirely unsurprising that you've bought into the conspiracy theory by that hack Suvorov

Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Dec 11, 2015

Cerebral Bore
Apr 21, 2010


Fun Shoe

LeoMarr posted:

So why is it then that these units didn't have maps of their own territory? You do realize that Military maps are topographic right? You can't use them in any other place other than the designated theater. Those maps had little to no reference to lines of defense, retreating orders or fallback points.

And I'm actually glad you show your lack of understanding formations by stating that I said forces at the border meant offensive.

There is a difference between offensive and defensive border positioning. It's safe to say that French forces at the Maginot line were defensive and did not plan on marching on Berlin.

Do you not know what a "counterattack" means? Have you even studied any of the pre-war STAVKA war plans? What are you even trying to argue, apart from some vague Red Menace conspiracy theory?

LeoMarr posted:

So why did Stalin enforce a 2 year draft in 1939 if he was planning for a defensive war? This would mean that soldiers of the USSR would have to enter war in 1 September 1941 or be released. (The draft started on 1, September 1939.)

Yes, I'm sure that Stalin, of all people, would just throw his hands up in the air and go "welp, I said that these dudes only had to serve for two years, now I gotta stick to my promise". Also I can think of no non-nefarious reason why a country would like to start a draft when there's a world war going on in the neighbourhood.

steinrokkan posted:

I think he is right in the specific context of the years before 1941 that Stalin wanted Germany and France to fight a war that would allow his offensive forces to sweep through Central Europe and at the very least substantially strengthen Soviet influence.

He's obviously wrong in thinking that this ambition survived Hitler's visit to Paris.

I have no goddamn idea what he's thinking at this point excapt that it's dumb.

Raskolnikov38
Mar 3, 2007

We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

This is the dude he's obliquely citing who has no experience in history or any reason to have had access to secret war plans while still residing in the Soviet Union.

Of note is the giant list of actual historians, including historians who loving loathe Stalin, have gone on record that Suvorov is full of poo poo.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Obdicut posted:

I have never run into this conspiracy theory before, sorry that it's taking me a little while to get to grips with it.

The simplest possible explanation is that he wanted to have some pressure taken off of him, that this is an obvious military good thing.

You have decided to complicate this with an idea that he wanted the US/UK to 'exhaust' themselves. The US wasn't going to be exhausted, even by a failure at D-Day. The US never showed any signs of remotely being inclined to throw in the towel at any point, and they weren't being materially stretched, either. The war was not bad for the US economy--it really limited what was available in the civilian market--and it was spurring enormous scientific advances for the US that the Russians knew they were not keeping pace with. The USSR, especially if they retained the slightest shred of actual Marxist theoretical grounding, would want the capitalist countries to go back to being capitalists and stop being command economies with extreme nationalism.

Really simply: Why not just the obvious explanation that if you're fighting someone of course you loving want a second front?

Why is that not sufficient?

When I say Exhaust I don't mean the country of US or UK falls, but by exhaust I mean being unable to stop soviet expansion in continental europe. What's your opinion on what would have happened had D-Day failed, Would you say that a second attempt would have been made? I really don't think it would have. And Stalin was winning before 1944. Previously in this threat some said that the High command knew the war was being lost in 1942-1943, Stalin wanted a second front in 1941. By 1944 when D-Day occurred Berlin was going to fall regardless. I am not arguing that he didn't want a second front. But there was a need for one in 1941 originally, not 1944 as much.


Yeah guys, Stalin was a really peaceful guy who didn't want to expand his ideals to any other countries...yeah

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"

gently caress it, I was replying at length but then I realized you didn't answer the loving question.

Why isn't the simple explanation good enough for you? If you are in a war, you want a second front because that's a good thing to have in a war. Germany might have revaled a Zukhov of their own or at least just stopped massively underestimating Russian strategy and tactics and been able to gently caress them up a lot more. Why isn't that simple reason sufficient explanation?


Nobody is claiming Stalin was peaceful, what the gently caress is wrong with you.

Raskolnikov38
Mar 3, 2007

We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Obdicut posted:

Nobody is claiming Stalin was peaceful, what the gently caress is wrong with you.

He's an idiot in every other thread why would this one be any different.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Cerebral Bore posted:

I don't think that he realizes that Stalin's main policy always was Socialism in One Country, and that he literally had people shot for advocating a spread of the revolution through force of arms.

Obdicut posted:

gently caress it, I was replying at length but then I realized you didn't answer the loving question.

Why isn't the simple explanation good enough for you? If you are in a war, you want a second front because that's a good thing to have in a war. Germany might have revaled a Zukhov of their own or at least just stopped massively underestimating Russian strategy and tactics and been able to gently caress them up a lot more. Why isn't that simple reason sufficient explanation?


Nobody is claiming Stalin was peaceful, what the gently caress is wrong with you.

Of course a second front is desirable. But what I am saying is that it was not needed to win the war in 1944. It was needed in 1941.

So which of these would need a second front more?
This?



Or this



WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Dec 11, 2015

Raskolnikov38
Mar 3, 2007

We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Its almost like a whole lot of poo poo changed between the mid 1920s and 1945.

vyelkin
Jan 2, 2011

LeoMarr posted:

Of course a second front is desirable. But what I am saying is that it was not needed to win the war in 1944. It was needed in 1941.

It's almost like it took the US and UK two years to plan the largest amphibious invasion in human history or something.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

vyelkin posted:

It's almost like it took the US and UK two years to plan the largest amphibious invasion in human history or something.

Yeah but how does that change the fact that a 1941 invasion would be more favorable To Stalin than a 1944 one, when he already had hitler on the ropes.

Captain_Maclaine
Sep 30, 2001

Every moment I'm alive, I pray for death!

Raskolnikov38 posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

This is the dude he's obliquely citing who has no experience in history or any reason to have had access to secret war plans while still residing in the Soviet Union.

Of note is the giant list of actual historians, including historians who loving loathe Stalin, have gone on record that Suvorov is full of poo poo.

Jesus christ, I knew this all sounded familiar. LeoMarr, on the off chance you're not actually channeling Suvorov and have come up with the garbage independently, what you're saying about Soviet intentions/motivations is, to put it kindly, very poorly supported by the historical record, where it is supported at all.

Cerebral Bore
Apr 21, 2010


Fun Shoe

Raskolnikov38 posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

This is the dude he's obliquely citing who has no experience in history or any reason to have had access to secret war plans while still residing in the Soviet Union.

Of note is the giant list of actual historians, including historians who loving loathe Stalin, have gone on record that Suvorov is full of poo poo.

Well, that explains it.

Is the idea that Stalin would have absolutely loved to see a failed D-Day also part of Suvorov's dumbassery or is that some other conspiracy theory?

WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Cerebral Bore posted:

Well, that explains it.

Is the idea that Stalin would have absolutely loved to see a failed D-Day also part of Suvorov's dumbassery or is that some other conspiracy theory?

I'm sure Stalin wanted the Allies to restore Capitalist Europe. You know that's why we have the cold war, the berlin airlift, soviet occupation of Eastern europe. Really Stalin just wanted France and Germany as friends and not fiefs.

Taerkar
Dec 7, 2002

kind of into it, really

LeoMarr posted:

Yeah but how does that change the fact that a 1941 invasion would be more favorable To Stalin than a 1944 one, when he already had hitler on the ropes.

Ah yes, the fabled 1941 would-be invasion, when most of the UK's ground forces had no heavy equipment and the US wasn't even in the war.

vyelkin
Jan 2, 2011

LeoMarr posted:

I'm sure Stalin wanted the Allies to restore Capitalist Europe. You know that's why we have the cold war, the berlin airlift, soviet occupation of Eastern europe. Really Stalin just wanted France and Germany as friends and not fiefs.

Yes, and I'm sure that Churchill and Roosevelt/Truman would have loved to liberate Europe all the way to the Russian border if that had somehow been an option. What's your point?

WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

vyelkin posted:

Yes, and I'm sure that Churchill and Roosevelt/Truman would have loved to liberate Europe all the way to the Russian border if that had somehow been an option. What's your point?

That Stalin actually wanted to sweep through the entirity of Continental europe and that in 1943- this was a distinct possibility had the invasion not taken place. Allies on continental Europe made taking it over pretty difficult. I doubt Stalin would have wanted a war with UK/US. However had a 1944 Invasion failed then Continental Europe would have been very very communist

Raskolnikov38
Mar 3, 2007

We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold
What the hell are you even arguing? Duh Stalin would have taken more of Europe if he could have, he said as much at a conference later.

vyelkin
Jan 2, 2011

Raskolnikov38 posted:

What the hell are you even arguing? Duh Stalin would have taken more of Europe if he could have, he said as much at a conference later.

I think his point is that Stalin was a supervillain whose master plan to take over Europe had been brewing for years and was only foiled by the Nazi invasion and the success of the Allied second front which Stalin didn't actually want despite repeatedly telling the Allies that he wanted it for years, which seems to me like a seriously confusing take on the fundamentally pragmatic, opportunist, and deeply paranoid foreign policy of the USSR under Stalin.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Raskolnikov38 posted:

What the hell are you even arguing? Duh Stalin would have taken more of Europe if he could have, he said as much at a conference later.

Originally that Poland wouldn't let Russian troops support Czechoslovakia because of Soviet aggression.

Then someone said Stalin was a man who believed in "Socialism in One nation" and therefore was not ready for an offensive into german territory, and was actually fearful of France and Germany and the UK teaming up and killing the commie menace once and for all therefore being prepared for a defense of the USSR. However this is insane as Stalin had ~5 Million troops mobilized and ~18 Million in reserve, and the USSR lost massive swathes of land because those troops were mobilized for an offensive not a defensive.

vyelkin posted:

I think his point is that Stalin was a supervillain whose master plan to take over Europe had been brewing for years and was only foiled by the Nazi invasion and the success of the Allied second front which Stalin didn't actually want despite repeatedly telling the Allies that he wanted it for years, which seems to me like a seriously confusing take on the fundamentally pragmatic, opportunist, and deeply paranoid foreign policy of the USSR under Stalin.

Actually I said that in 1941 Stalin wanted a second front because he desperately needed it as Moscow under threat. But in 1944 when the offensive actually happened it was less favorable for Stalin because having allied troops on his new French Fief stopped him from sweeping over Europe.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Dec 11, 2015

Cerebral Bore
Apr 21, 2010


Fun Shoe
I, too, am convinced that Stalin would have been absolutely delighted if all those Germans that were held up in France by the threat of an US/UK invasion could have been redeployed to fight the Red Army in the east. This would totally have sapped the resources of the US and UK a lot or something, but honestly this is kinda when I lose track of the various conspiracies involved here.

LeoMarr posted:

Actually I said that in 1941 Stalin wanted a second front because he desperately needed it as Moscow under threat. But in 1944 when the offensive actually happened it was less favorable for Stalin because having allied troops on his new French Fief stopped him from sweeping over Europe.

And this is why Stalin kept demanding that second front every year until it actually materialized. The man was such an diabolical genius that he actively worked against his own master plan.

LeoMarr posted:

Originally that Poland wouldn't let Russian troops support Czechoslovakia because of Soviet aggression.

Then someone said Stalin was a man who believed in "Socialism in One nation" and therefore was not ready for an offensive into german territory, and was actually fearful of France and Germany and the UK teaming up and killing the commie menace once and for all therefore being prepared for a defense of the USSR. However this is insane as Stalin had ~5 Million troops mobilized and ~18 Million in reserve, and the USSR lost massive swathes of land because those troops were mobilized for an offensive not a defensive.

I guess this is kind of what I've been saying, if youcompletely misunderstand everything that I've been saying and also are confused by concepts such as "offensive" and "war preparations".

Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Dec 11, 2015

WAR CRIME GIGOLO
Oct 3, 2012

The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Cerebral Bore posted:

I, too, am convinced that Stalin would have been absolutely delighted if all those Germans that were held up in France by the threat of an US/UK invasion could have been redeployed to fight the Red Army in the east. This would totally have sapped the resources of the US and UK a lot or something, but honestly this is kinda when I lose track of the various conspiracies involved here.


I guess this is kind of what I've been saying, if you completely misunderstand everything that I've been saying and are confused by concepts such as "offensive" and "war preparations".

Troops in Western front from 1939 to 1941 :

3.5 Million

Troops in Western front in 1944

1.5 Million

You are dumb.

Tell me more about what would have happened had D-day failed, last time I checked there wouldn't be any allied troops to stop the USSR from filling the boots of the Wehrmcht at the Atlantic Wall.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Dec 11, 2015

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"

LeoMarr posted:



Tell me more about what would have happened had D-day failed, last time I checked there wouldn't be any allied troops to stop the USSR from filling the boots of the Wehrmcht at the Atlantic Wall.

You checked dumb.

Teriyaki Hairpiece
Dec 29, 2006

I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.
LeoMarr, I got dogpiled in the A/T milhist thread for calling the posters there "pro-Soviet", and my favorite popular historian is Norman Davies, and even I think you're being a moron.

HerraS
Apr 15, 2012

Looking professional when committing genocide is essential. This is mostly achieved by using a beret.

Olive drab colour ensures the genocider will remain hidden from his prey until it's too late for them to do anything.



The soviets had just about completely depleted their manpower reserves by the time they got to Berlin, and thats with a succesful D-Day forcing the germans to fight on two fronts. I'm sure they would've been thrilled to spend who knows how many more years trying to get to the Atlantic instead of rebuilding their burning wasteland of a country.

Redeye Flight
Mar 26, 2010

God, I'm so tired. What the hell did I post last night?
Indeed. While theoretically the Red Army could have stomped all the way to the Atlantic, even in an alternate world it's extremely unlikely they would have done so for a broad number of reasons. Enormous manpower drain--twenty million Russians died in World War II as it was. It would have enormously unnerved the Allies, as well. There's also the consideration that once actual vengeance had been wreaked on Germany, going beyond would probably have had nowhere near as powerful support among the Russian populace.

In basically any realistic world there is no chance of Russia manning the Atlantic Wall, and such fears are little more than the night-terrors of the anticommunists of the era.

Taerkar
Dec 7, 2002

kind of into it, really

I like the entire idiocy of a military being capable of only being either offensive or defensive and that's why the Germans pushed them back like they did, rather than the well known facts of the disassembly of the original Stalin Line along the Polish border and the incomplete state of the Molotov Line along the new border leaving them with unfortified defensive positions. Oh and of course the reorganization and officer purges of the Red Army at the time.

What's next? The ability of the BT-7 to drive really fast on roads as proof that Stalin was just about to attack Hitler?

"Comrade Stalin! Our troops are stuck in offensive stance and can't stop the Nazi Advance!"

"My plans, Ruined!"

Panzeh
Nov 27, 2006

"..The high ground"

Taerkar posted:

"Comrade Stalin! Our troops are stuck in offensive stance and can't stop the Nazi Advance!"

"My plans, Ruined!"

Someone's been playing too much Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa~

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

vyelkin
Jan 2, 2011

Taerkar posted:

I like the entire idiocy of a military being capable of only being either offensive or defensive and that's why the Germans pushed them back like they did, rather than the well known facts of the disassembly of the original Stalin Line along the Polish border and the incomplete state of the Molotov Line along the new border leaving them with unfortified defensive positions. Oh and of course the reorganization and officer purges of the Red Army at the time.

What's next? The ability of the BT-7 to drive really fast on roads as proof that Stalin was just about to attack Hitler?

"Comrade Stalin! Our troops are stuck in offensive stance and can't stop the Nazi Advance!"

"My plans, Ruined!"

Soviet tanks and vehicles were only built able to drive west, so when they had to retreat east it was a disaster!!! And all the instructions were written in German so naturally the Russian-speaking troops were horribly confused.

But do you know what is the decisive, conclusive proof that Stalin was on the verge of an invasion of Germany in June 1941? The fact that he was giving Germany massive amounts of resources useful for fighting a war, helping Germany bypass the British blockade. I mean, that's Stalin for you! Such a great guy, he wanted the Germans to have a fair fighting chance when his offensive-only army rolled across the border, so he made sure to give the Germans a shitload of war materials first.

  • Locked thread