|
LeoMarr posted:What about when Japan practically announced that they were not going to attack the USSR and Stalin moved a large army group out of Siberia? Had those divisions not been freed up would Moscow have been liberated? At the risk of indulging your bizarre nuttery about the war in the East: Like I said, throw in enough "what ifs" and you make anything seem trivially plausible, but given that Japan had gotten severely curbstomped by the Red Army twice in the 30s and was still scared to hell of them, and had an entirely different war(s)* going that preempted any lunatic plans to invade the Soviet Far East, I don't see how this has any particular relevance to what I said. Even if Zhukov hadn't had the Siberian divisions handy in winter 1941 and Moscow was faced with a unified Wehrmacht rather than just the advanced elements of Army Group Center and they somehow magicked up enough winterized equipment to take the city (or got their earlier, since we're in "just make poo poo up entirely" territory here), I still don't see the USSR collapsing as a belligerent power or failing, later on, to marshal an equivalent force to that which it actually used to kick Fritz all the way back to Berlin. Particularly as having a unified Wehrmacht before Moscow meant the centers of Soviet manufacture and fuel elsewhere would not have been touched by the other German Army Groups which, by definition, wouldn't have driven into the Ukraine and Baltic States. vyelkin posted:Did you just refer to the Nazis taking Moscow as it being "liberated"? He likely meant would Zhukov been able to break the hypothetical siege/liberated the occupation of Moscow IF we made up a bunch of poo poo, gave the Germans far greater/better equipped forces than they could possibly have had, and stripped Zhukov of the reinforcements he used in actuality to push Army Group Center back during the winter of 1941. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Dec 11, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:At the risk of indulging your bizarre nuttery about the war in the East: Like I said, throw in enough "what ifs" and you make anything seem trivially plausible, but given that Japan had gotten severely curbstomped by the Red Army twice in the 30s and was still scared to hell of them, and had an entirely different war(s)* going that preempted any lunatic plans to invade the Soviet Far East, I don't see how this has any particular relevance to what I said. Even if Zhukov hadn't had the Siberian divisions handy in winter 1941 and Moscow was faced with a unified Wehrmacht rather than just the advanced elements of Army Group Center and they somehow magicked up enough winterized equipment to take the city (or got their earlier, since we're in "just make poo poo up entirely" territory here), I still don't see the USSR collapsing as a belligerent power or failing, later on, to marshal an equivalent force to that which it actually used to kick Fritz all the way back to Berlin. Particularly as having a unified Wehrmacht before Moscow meant the centers of Soviet manufacture and fuel elsewhere would not have been touched by the other German Army Groups which, by definition, wouldn't have driven into the Ukraine and Baltic States. I actually just wanted to know if those 30 divisions would have made a significant impact on the siege of Moscow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:I actually just wanted to know if those 30 divisions would have made a significant impact on the siege of Moscow. I'm confused, do you mean if Stalin had stayed paranoid about Japan and refused to move them for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'm confused, do you mean if Stalin had stayed paranoid about Japan and refused to move them for some reason? Yes, What I meant was IF those divisions had stayed in Siberia longer, would it make a significant impact on Moscow being liberated in '42.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
LeoMarr. Never stop posting, please. Favorite leader in the Pacific: Admiral Spruance - Battle Off Samar (Leyte) Taffy-3, jesus. e: whoops not a rear admiral p sure. Herv fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Yes, What I meant was IF those divisions had stayed in Siberia longer, would it make a significant impact on Moscow's siege being lifted in '42. Perhaps, but I very much doubt it would have had a huge material impact on the war in the East since it wasn't like the Wehrmacht was going to do anything besides try not to freeze all the way to death outside of Moscow in the aftermath of Barbarossa, nor be able to move again until after the spring rasputitsa. And it's not like they fully had the city besieged as it was; sure, they could shell it and send bombers over but other than outriders and scouts they didn't get any substantial land forces all that close to the Moscow city defenses. As counterfactuals go, though, I don't find it one worth all that much consideration, both as Zhukov did have access to those divisions, and you really have to contort things out of all recognition to construct a version of events in which Stalin would not have released them, given what he knew about Japan's war aims in China and against the US/colonial powers in the Pacific. Herv posted:Favorite leader in the Pacific: Rear Admiral Spruance - Battle Off Samar (Leyte) Interesting sidenote: Spruance was known as "Ziggy" to his friends. I have no idea why. But yeah Taffy-3 is one of the most amazing stories of the Pacific war. Why no one's made a full-length movie at least centered on it, if not all of Leyte itself, I'll never know. Double Edit: He was a Rear Admiral by the time of Leyte. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:But then why is it the germans got within 10 miles of moscow? Couldn't it be argued that as soon as France fell the main objective of the USSR was to assault German held territory to stop Germany from taking over the USSR? Which would coincide with the lack of defensive planning that we saw during the early campaign of Operation Barbarossa. Stalin saw the writing on the wall, in May, 1940 Stalin had until September 1941 to enter the war before his draftees would expire. Hitler attacked in June, 4 months before the invasion of Germany that the USSR desired to happen. Those would have been a critical 4 months to finish the touches on the assaulting force, however the USSR was caught completely off guard by the german attack (History proves this.) Now obviously the Officer purge affected the soviet army, but what really affected the Soviet army was the fact that the officer count was not high enough to match the growth of the Soviet army. In 1940/1941 The officers that were in the army were basically draftees. I mean when your army goes from 1.8 Mil in 1939 to 5 Mil/18Mil reserves, it takes quite an effort to get an officer count to match that, even without a purge it would have been difficult. Because Stalin knew war with Germany would happen eventually but was certain that it wouldn't happen in 1941, so he engaged in various major reorganizations and shifts and expansions in the Red Army with the goal of being absolutely ready to crush Germany by 1943 or 1944. Unfortunately for the Soviets, Hitler attacked much earlier than expected, and the Red Army was in the midst of major changes that left it in no state to fight any kind of war (offensive or defensive) when Barbarossa began. Stalin simply let his guard down, assuming that the Red Army wouldn't need to fight in 1941 and therefore it was okay to sacrifice its immediate readiness to fight for the sake of larger restructurings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
I feel kinda stupid asking, but is there any point to running counterfactuals that see the Germans developing nuclear weapons?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:41
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:I feel kinda stupid asking, but is there any point to running counterfactuals No, not really.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:I feel kinda stupid asking, but is there any point to running counterfactuals that see the Germans developing nuclear weapons? The Nazis were extremely far behind in development, and even by the end of the war were in the theoretical phase. Basically, it might have happened it they had an extra decade or so to work on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:I feel kinda stupid asking, but is there any point to running counterfactuals that see the Germans developing nuclear weapons? Not really, since they didn't really have a bomb project to speak of, let alone any progress toward a usable weapon. Effectronica posted:No, not really. Also this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because Stalin knew war with Germany would happen eventually but was certain that it wouldn't happen in 1941, so he engaged in various major reorganizations and shifts and expansions in the Red Army with the goal of being absolutely ready to crush Germany by 1943 or 1944. Unfortunately for the Soviets, Hitler attacked much earlier than expected, and the Red Army was in the midst of major changes that left it in no state to fight any kind of war (offensive or defensive) when Barbarossa began. Stalin simply let his guard down, assuming that the Red Army wouldn't need to fight in 1941 and therefore it was okay to sacrifice its immediate readiness to fight for the sake of larger restructurings. So why enact a 2 year draft and raise a 5 million strong army so rapidly that your officer corps suffers if you plan to crush your enemy after those forces are released in 1941?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, not really. I dunno, sometimes they make a decent jumping off point to launch an investigation into why something happened. LeoMarr posted:So why enact a 2 year draft and raise a 5 million strong army so rapidly that your officer corps suffers if you plan to crush your enemy after those forces are released in 1941? You can 'redraft' those people once they're out, its actually the whole point of a peace time draft. You give 'em two years of training and then a month or two refresher course when war actually breaks out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I dunno, sometimes they make a decent jumping off point to launch an investigation into why something happened. True, but it's far more likely to end up in Bad Alt-History land than anywhere interesting I find. Not like we're lacking things to talk about that, you know, actually happened. LeoMarr posted:So why enact a 2 year draft and raise a 5 million strong army so rapidly that your officer corps suffers if you plan to crush your enemy after those forces are released in 1941? "Reserve formations? What is this black sorcery you speak of?!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:So why enact a 2 year draft and raise a 5 million strong army so rapidly that your officer corps suffers if you plan to crush your enemy after those forces are released in 1941? In all likelihood, a) because the Soviet Union, like the Russian Empire before it, would periodically draft people into the army even when there wasn't a war going on; b) because they wanted to establish a large number of young men with military training for whenever the war eventually did come; and c) because they were indeed involved in both a limited round of aggressive military expansion into Finland, the Baltic States, eastern Poland, and Bessarabia, and an ongoing but slow-burning conflict with the Japanese Kwantung Army, a reflection of the ongoing deterioration in peaceful foreign relations and outbreak of war around the world and around the USSR's borders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Would it have been possible for the Nazis to defeat the soviets militarily, by employing different strategies, attacking at a different time etc? Or were they always basically destined to lose against a country that was so huge, tough and productive. No. They would have needed two additional Germanies to win in the east. Their last chance for a victory would have been to sue for peace on favorable terms with the west before Barbarossa but their ideology made this impossible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:11
|
|
vyelkin posted:In all likelihood, a) because the Soviet Union, like the Russian Empire before it, would periodically draft people into the army even when there wasn't a war going on; b) because they wanted to establish a large number of young men with military training for whenever the war eventually did come; and c) because they were indeed involved in both a limited round of aggressive military expansion into Finland, the Baltic States, eastern Poland, and Bessarabia, and an ongoing but slow-burning conflict with the Japanese Kwantung Army, a reflection of the ongoing deterioration in peaceful foreign relations and outbreak of war around the world and around the USSR's borders. Let's not neglect d) the desire of the USSR to create universal mass associations like the Komsomol and Young Pioneers, with the Red Army having been "cleansed of reactionaries" and thus now suitable for that purpose.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:No. They would have needed two additional Germanies to win in the east. Their last chance for a victory would have been to sue for peace on favorable terms with the west before Barbarossa but their ideology made this impossible. Yeah, this. Basically the only way for Nazi Germany to have succeeded was if it hadn't been Nazi Germany.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Germany and Japan could have won WW2, but not by their own efforts. Their strategies ultimately relied on assuming things would work out in their favor, whether the British about-facing or at least negotiating peace, the American public losing any will to fight after the destruction of an American fleet, the USSR collapsing on invasion, etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Germany and Japan could have won WW2, but not by their own efforts. Their strategies ultimately relied on assuming things would work out in their favor, whether the British about-facing or at least negotiating peace, the American public losing any will to fight after the destruction of an American fleet, the USSR collapsing on invasion, etc. All of which rested on assumptions about their enemies which were, at best, unreasonable and misinformed, and at worst ideologically-derived racist horseshit. I mean I can kinda- sorta- grant that, in a bad light with only the recent history of Munich in mind, German officials might have had some slight basis for thinking Britain would back off after the Fall of France (again, ignoring an awful lot), but Japan's presumption that the US would be willing to shrug off the loss of the Pacific Fleet and territories and not have the stomach for a long fight was entirely delusional. And Hitler's "kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down" was based entirely on his ideological presumption that the only thing that had kept the old Russian Empire up was an elite intelligentsia of ethnic Germans, which the sinister-yet-feckless Judeo-Bolsheviks had either killed or driven off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Even if Zhukov hadn't had the Siberian divisions handy in winter 1941 and Moscow was faced with a unified Wehrmacht rather than just the advanced elements of Army Group Center and they somehow magicked up enough winterized equipment to take the city (or got their earlier, since we're in "just make poo poo up entirely" territory here), I still don't see the USSR collapsing as a belligerent power or failing, later on, to marshal an equivalent force to that which it actually used to kick Fritz all the way back to Berlin. Particularly as having a unified Wehrmacht before Moscow meant the centers of Soviet manufacture and fuel elsewhere would not have been touched by the other German Army Groups which, by definition, wouldn't have driven into the Ukraine and Baltic States. I thought "what if they got their earlier?" was actually the plausible historical counterfactual? The launch of Barbarossa was delayed a couple of months from its original timeline so Hitler could stomp on his new European possessions more thoroughly, and the stall of the Wehrmacht's advance was extremely weather related. If they'd proceeded on their original timeline before the weather turned, it's possible they'd have been in a position to winter in Moscow rather than freezing to death outside of it. It's not so much that the Red Army wouldn't have still put up a hell of a fight going forward and that the defeat of the German military wasn't ultimately likely owning to differences in industrial output, it's that the Soviet Union would have lost a significant portion of their industry and the strength/morale of the German military wouldn't have been anywhere near as severely depleted as it was after Barbarossa failed. Less of a turning point in the war and more of a necessary pre-condition to the turning point, which would be something like the Nazis leveraging their better position in this scenario to successfully seize the Baku oil fields/win Stalingrad. Though once you diverge that far from the historical record I guess you might as well go full Turtledove. LGD fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:23
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:All of which rested on assumptions about their enemies which were, at best, unreasonable and misinformed, and at worst ideologically-derived racist horseshit. I mean I can kinda- sorta- grant that, in a bad light with only the recent history of Munich in mind, German officials might have had some slight basis for thinking Britain would back off after the Fall of France (again, ignoring an awful lot), but Japan's presumption that the US would be willing to shrug off the loss of the Pacific Fleet and territories and not have the stomach for a long fight was entirely delusional. And Hitler's "kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down" was based entirely on his ideological presumption that the only thing that had kept the old Russian Empire up was an elite intelligentsia of ethnic Germans, which the sinister-yet-feckless Judeo-Bolsheviks had either killed or driven off. Well, Japanese strategy was always based around the assumption that they would lose any war with the USA but could manage to convince the Americans that a negotiated peace was better than trying to crush them completely. You also have to keep in mind that this would have been a much more plausible strategy without the war in China, but without the invasion of China in 1937 there wouldn't have been a war between the US and Japan. Really, the Japanese path to war is fascinating by how circuitous and for-want-of-a-nail it is.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
LGD posted:I thought "what if they got their earlier?" was actually the plausible historical counterfactual? The launch of Barbarossa was delayed a couple of months from its original timeline so Hitler could stomp on his new European possessions more thoroughly, and the stall of the Wehrmacht's advance was extremely weather related. If they'd proceeded on their original timeline before the weather turned, it's possible they'd have been in a position to winter in Moscow rather than freezing to death outside of it. It's not so much that the Red Army wouldn't have still put up a hell of a fight going forward and that the defeat of the German military wasn't ultimately likely owning to differences in industrial output, it's that the Soviet Union would have lost a significant portion of their industry and the strength/morale of the German military wouldn't have been anywhere near as severely depleted as it was after Barbarossa failed. Less of a turning point in the war and more of a necessary pre-condition to the turning point, which would be something like the Nazis leveraging their better position in this scenario to successfully seize the Baku oil fields. Though once you diverge that far from the historical record I guess you might as well go full Turtledove. If they'd launched Barbarossa a couple of moths earlier it would probably have turned out worse for the Germans, as they'd be running headfirst into the spring Rasputitsa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:If they'd launched Barbarossa a couple of moths earlier it would probably have turned out worse for the Germans, as they'd be running headfirst into the spring Rasputitsa. There is never a good time of year to invade Russia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:True, but it's far more likely to end up in Bad Alt-History land than anywhere interesting I find. Not like we're lacking things to talk about that, you know, actually happened. Stalin had an additional 18 million people drafted into the reserve on top of the 5 million man army. Raskolnikov38 posted:I dunno, sometimes they make a decent jumping off point to launch an investigation into why something happened. So if all of these people are expected to be released after their contract ends, why would you put them on the German-Soviet border? Wouldn't this signal the immediate need for an attack by Germany? As in if you witnessed your sworn enemy's manpower drop by 4 million, wouldn't you to attack? Don't you think Stalin knew this? If he wanted to train these soldiers in secret, why concentrate them on a border where their existence is known to the enemy? Maybe Stalin should have put the russian training centers on the border to really scare ol' hitler vyelkin posted:In all likelihood, a) because the Soviet Union, like the Russian Empire before it, would periodically draft people into the army even when there wasn't a war going on; b) because they wanted to establish a large number of young men with military training for whenever the war eventually did come; and c) because they were indeed involved in both a limited round of aggressive military expansion into Finland, the Baltic States, eastern Poland, and Bessarabia, and an ongoing but slow-burning conflict with the Japanese Kwantung Army, a reflection of the ongoing deterioration in peaceful foreign relations and outbreak of war around the world and around the USSR's borders. A) Russian Empire did this to cull uprisings by removing a large quantity of fighting aged males from areas of high revolt B) So slap them on the border and then tell them to go home, So really Stalin just conscripted 5 million people for border control services from 1939 to 1941? C) So therefore put them on the opposite side of the world (In reference to Kwantung). Also the draft started in 1939, the winter war ended in 1940. I really don't think 23 million people needed to be conscripted for Finland. Concentration of forces on German-USSR Border 1 January 1939 22 June 1941 Increase Divisions calculated 131.5 316.5 140.7% Personnel 2,485,000 5,774,000 132.4% Guns and mortars 55,800 117,600 110.7% Tanks 21,100 25,700 21.8% Aircraft 7,700 18,700 142.8%
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, Japanese strategy was always based around the assumption that they would lose any war with the USA but could manage to convince the Americans that a negotiated peace was better than trying to crush them completely. You also have to keep in mind that this would have been a much more plausible strategy without the war in China, but without the invasion of China in 1937 there wouldn't have been a war between the US and Japan. Really, the Japanese path to war is fascinating by how circuitous and for-want-of-a-nail it is. Granted, but that assumption was based on a fundamental misread of the US and how it would react if attacked directly. When it comes to the Pacific War, one of the things that stands out most in my mind is just how badly both the US and Japan misunderstood one another, both in the run up and during the war itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:All of which rested on assumptions about their enemies which were, at best, unreasonable and misinformed, and at worst ideologically-derived racist horseshit. I mean I can kinda- sorta- grant that, in a bad light with only the recent history of Munich in mind, German officials might have had some slight basis for thinking Britain would back off after the Fall of France (again, ignoring an awful lot), but Japan's presumption that the US would be willing to shrug off the loss of the Pacific Fleet and territories and not have the stomach for a long fight was entirely delusional. And Hitler's "kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down" was based entirely on his ideological presumption that the only thing that had kept the old Russian Empire up was an elite intelligentsia of ethnic Germans, which the sinister-yet-feckless Judeo-Bolsheviks had either killed or driven off. What if Dunkirk had resulted in the capture of 300,000 troops including most of the BEF. Would the UK still have fought back had their army been eradicated? I should extrapolate on this a bit, I know they would not have surrendered instantly, because they still had the RAF and RN. But what would be the implications of a german capture of that many brits WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:49
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Granted, but that assumption was based on a fundamental misread of the US and how it would react if attacked directly. When it comes to the Pacific War, one of the things that stands out most in my mind is just how badly both the US and Japan misunderstood one another, both in the run up and during the war itself. It isn't really. The Japanese misjudged, like everyone else, how determined the Americans would be, but there was a surging desire to end the war quickly after V-E Day and the post-Guadalcanal strategy contributed heavily to the Japanese holding out that long. It's entirely plausible to conceive of a situation where a negotiated peace is conducted in 1945 or 1946, provided of course the requisite miracles.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There is never a good time of year to invade Russia. Subutai didn't have any problems 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Bolow posted:Subutai didn't have any problems Well the blood kept the roads warm so he didn't have any issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There is never a good time of year to invade Russia. The spring mud has to dry. You go in right after. (and get swallowed up by the vastness ahead)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Stalin had an additional 18 million people drafted into the reserve on top of the 5 million man army. You draft people to replace those that hit the age cap. IE: 1939: Draft of all persons born 1919-1921 1940: Release of 1919 class, drafting of 1922 class begins 1941: Release of 1920 class, drafting of 1923 class begins and so on and so on
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It isn't really. The Japanese misjudged, like everyone else, how determined the Americans would be, but there was a surging desire to end the war quickly after V-E Day and the post-Guadalcanal strategy contributed heavily to the Japanese holding out that long. It's entirely plausible to conceive of a situation where a negotiated peace is conducted in 1945 or 1946, provided of course the requisite miracles. I don't know that I buy that, honestly. War weary though the US was after the end of the war in Europe, I have a hard time seeing either the US agreeing to any sort of negotiated settlement with Japan given the unreasonable nature of what Japan was still hoping to retain in 1945, or that if the US had to invade in 1945 it would have accepted anything less than unconditional surrender once US troops had been bloodied, to whatever degree, on the Japanese main islands. That is of course leaving out the impact of the Bomb, and Red Army, though presumably the absence of those two factors might be part of the requisite miracles you mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:42
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I don't know that I buy that, honestly. War weary though the US was after the end of the war in Europe, I have a hard time seeing either the US agreeing to any sort of negotiated settlement with Japan given the unreasonable nature of what Japan was still hoping to retain in 1945, or that if the US had to invade in 1945 it would have accepted anything less than unconditional surrender once US troops had been bloodied, to whatever degree, on the Japanese main islands. I was actually thinking of Shokaku and Zuikaku being present at Midway and a Japanese "victory" there, such that the Allies are slowed down significantly in the Solomons. Japanese victory is basically predicated on how long they can keep the Americans at arm's length- if the only way to deliver the Bomb is through a Chinese airfield, it's going to be a much more dubious proposition. But once the Allies captured the Marianas/Ryukyus, quick victory was basically in sight.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:You draft people to replace those that hit the age cap. IE: This makes no sense because this action would be well documented. Also this wouldn't correlate with common knowledge because it would be a class of 1918 for 1939 as Stalin reduced the Red Army age from 21 to 19.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:This makes no sense because this action would be well documented. Also this wouldn't correlate with common knowledge because it would be a class of 1918 for 1939 as Stalin reduced the Red Army age from 21 to 19. Seriously, why are you so bad at this? Why do you look for overly complex explanations?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:This makes no sense because this action would be well documented. Its literally the point of peacetime drafts dude. I don't have my Glantz books with me to cite anything for the soviets but you can look up at how European nations do compulsory military service/reserves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Seriously, why are you so bad at this? Why do you look for overly complex explanations? Overcomplex? So it was all chance? Stalin happened to enact a draft which happened to end 4 months prior to the Nazi invasion of the USSR. Oh and these troops happened to be on the border of Germany? You're drawing at straws. "Oh actually that draft was totally status quo! Find me a documented source that stares the 1939 draft even happened. Because those are scarce. If it was statis quo why was it so secretive? So they just happened to assemble the largest army ever concieved of because it was a regular occurence? Do you know how much it costs to conscript 23 million people? Thats not something you do every few years. Aswell as the famines and huge drop in birth rate during 1919 onward. They just did it for the gently caress of it. Gotcha. I can see it now Stalin: lets conscripy 23 million dudes so we can train em gently caress it
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:52
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Overcomplex? So it was all chance? Stalin happened to enact a draft which happened to end 4 months prior to the Nazi invasion of the USSR. Oh and these troops happened to be on the border of Germany? And why doesn't anybody recognize that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:And why doesn't anybody recognize that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll? Are you going to call me a holocaust denier next?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 03:07
|
|