My two cents about WWII

[Interested]

1) Von Mellenthin in his "Panzer Battles" claimed that Russia's greatest military hero, Marshal G.K.Zhukov, was trained in Germany in the 1920s. This training was part of a clandestine program by which the Soviet Union allowed the then German Weimar Republic to assemble submarines in the Ukraine in exchange for the training of Red Army officers. I don't know whether Mellenthin was right or not. Do you guys have any info on this?

2) Soviet historians claimed that the Western Powers, especially the Chamberlain Government in Britain, wanted to use the Nazis to destroy the Soviet Union. That explains why Chamberlain repeatedly turned down Soviet proposals for joint actions to stop Nazi aggression in Europe. According to these historians, Austria and the Sudentenland were given to the Germans as downpayment for starting such a war. If that were so, then why did Britain stand firm on Poland, a country where Britain had no major interests? Might it not be wiser to let Poland go the way Austria and Czechoslovakia did? That would bring the Nazi armies right on to the Soviet borders. An armed clash with the Soviet Union would very likely have materialized and the "reactionary British ruling clique" would have achieved their goal (The Soviets had their own greedy design in Poland and Eastern Europe and would never accept the presence of Nazi armies on their borders). In my opinion, the argument of Soviet historians is not quite valid. I believe the Nazi-Soviet deal was the greatest mistake Stalin made in his entire career. Despite their bungling, the British did not want Hitler to dominate Europe and they really wanted to come to an agreement with the Soviet Union (the failure to reach this agreement was largely due to Polish stupidity). If Stalin had not given him the green light, Hitler would never have dared to launch WWII, regardless of whether the Western Powers and the Soviet Union could reach an agreement or not

3) Alexander Werth in his book "Russia at War" said Stalin wanted to take the initiative and attack Germany in 1942 but Hitler managed to get his blow in first. I find this a bit difficult to believe. Despite all the talk about the Red Army's invincibility, Stalin himself did not believe it could stand up to so powerful and proficient an enemy as the German Werhmacht. Stalin was well aware of the Red Army's shortcomings and he knew all the balyhoo about its might was mainly for public consumption (whistling in the dark, you might say). Even at the Battle of Kursk in 1943, when the much more proficient Red Army faced the already much weakened Germans, Stalin dared not take the offensive. Of course I am aware that in the end the Red Army almost single-handedly crushed the German war machine and that by 1945 its performance reached a very high standard. However, I'm still unconvinced that Stalin, given his excessive caution, would have struck first if Hitler had not attacked Russia. This is my view. And I'd like to know yours

4) Both Hitler and Stalin often overruled their generals. However I think Hitler was the better strategist. In 1940, Hitler enthusiastically supported the Manstein Plan (Fall Gelb, the attack in the West) over the opposition of the conservative German General Staff. As we all know, this plan led to a magnificent German victory at very little cost in blood to the Germans. In the winter of 1941-1942, when Zhukov launched his great counter-offensive in front of Moscow, Hitler ordered his troops to stand fast while most of his generals wanted to pull back. As we know, this order saved the German Army from a Napoleonic ending. Well, I know a similar order later led to the Stalingrad catastrophe. However, at Stalingrad, Hitler was wrong because he put too much faith in the fighting quality of the Rumanian divisions manning the flanks of the German Sixth Army (and in Goering's promise to supply it by air). Had those divisions been German, the Russians would not have been able to break through and Hitler would have been right. In 1944, while most of his generals considered Pas de Calaise as the main theater of the Allied invasion, Hitler rightly predicted that the Allies would land at Normandy and concentrated some of his best divisions there. Also in 1944, the Germans launched the unexpected Ardenes offensive against the complacent Americans. This offensive, if the Germans had had some two more armies and about 1000 more aircraft, would have split the Allied front asunder and trapped at least 2 Allied armies in Belgium. Despite its failure, most military historians agreed this offensive was a brilliant stroke. And it was Hitler's idea, again over the opposition of his generals. In contrast, I do not know of a single example of Stalin's much touted "military genius". I do know that in August 1941 Stalin, against the advice of Zhukov and other generals, ordered Kiev be held. As we all know, this led to a catastrophic Soviet defeat in which 660,000(?) Russians were taken prisoner. Maybe I'm ill-informed or even misinformed. Maybe you guys can correct me

5) I read somewhere that Stalin's son, Yakub, was captured in 1942 and he died in German captivity. If he wanted, Yakub could easily have dodged military service (Papa so powerful) or got a desk job in Moscow, far from the front and danger. I think Yakub was a hero. I think Stalin's refusal to exchange Yakub for two captured German generals was a bit hard. After all, the Russians held dozens of German generals and two defeated ones weren't worth much. I also read somewhere that Khrushchev's son, an airman, was killed in action near Smolensk but I did not know much about him

6) I notice that someone on this board calls himself Voroshilov because someone else has already taken the nickname "Zhukov". Just wonder why this guy prefers Voroshilov over other Russian generals like Shaposnhikov, Timoshenko, Vasilevsky, Rokossovsky, Konev, Chuikov or even Tukhachevsky (who I know was killed by Stalin before the war but he was a brilliant military leader all the same). Voroshilov, and other civil war heroes like Budienny, Kulik, etc, proved wholy incapable to cope with the conditions of WWII. Though they held lower ranks, it was the younger generals who saved Russia and defeated the Nazis. I do not know of any of Voroshilov's exploits. Did he have any, Voroshilov?

Lastly, I agree that it was the Russians who bore the brunt of the fighting and saved the world from Nazi domination, though it's not that the Russians chose to save the world and thus sacrificed millions of their people. When I saw the film "Saving Private Ryan" and heard the phrase "D-Day changes all that" (as if without the Normandy landing the Germans would have won the war) I almost laughed aloud. If the Americans are constantly spoon-fed with this Hollywood crap, is it any wonder most of them are so ignorant of what really happened?

Sorry for being a bit long-winded and thanks for reaching this line

[Ragnvald]

Hi Interested

From your questions I would guess that you are the one who can answer them best. :-)

If you are indeed Interested I just give you my personal views.

1. I would doubt that. Stalin would have them shot straight after completion of training in Germany. They would be framed as potential spys. The guy was really mad.

2. No doubt that Western countries hated USSR much more than Hitler, at least before he has committed his atrocities. USSR was enemy No1, and Hitler was No2.
Chemberlen even started disarmament to convince Hitler that he was very peaceful guy. ( Australia and New Zealand presented English with brand new battle cruiser just before the war. The English cut it to pieces in the process of disarmament. It's very embarassing fact)
Cherchill had plans to attack USSR already after the war, it's well documented in Britain Archives. I love English, they handle documents really well.
They declared war on Germany after invasion of Poland ( were bound by treaty with Poland), but didn't do anything, until have been attacked.

3. I don't think so. Stalin considered Hitler a friend.
Dictator likes another dictator obviously. German attack was a big shock for him. He didn't believe his own spies that told him consistently that Germans are about to attack.
USSR kept its arm forces just on the boarder. Zhukov suggested that they should be moved at least 200 km from the boarder, to make sure they are not taken by surprise. Stalin refused. He believed Hitler so much.
As a result, Germans used surprise factor, crashed and rounded up Soviet forces near the boarder and got clear way to Moscow.

4. Stalin was absolutely uncapable strategist. He was an absolute idiot as far as military busines is concerned.
(At his time he was good at robbing banks, though).
He made several very dear mistakes at start of the war.
One was that he ordered to attach under Moscow when German forces were stopped. Zhukov asked him to wait just 2 weeks until fresh forces from Siberia would arrive. Stalin wanted to attack now, as a result Germans were able to stop and crash Russian offence.
Stalin actually realised his incapability and often gave Zhukov power to take dicisions. Zhukov was NEVER wrong.

5. I am not sure how many sons Khruschev had, but one of them is American citizen now. He is some sort of scientist.

6. The guy who calls himself Vorosilov here is actually Hungarian. Very nice person. I am not sure why he has chosen this name.

Have a happy New Year

Ragn

[vorosilov]

Dear Interested,

No, Vorosilov did not have exploits in WW2.
Voroshilov was a hero of the Civil war. He was highly regarded by the public. Stalinist propaganda made his name a symbol. He was out of Stalin's favor by the and of the thirties, but his nimbus lived on. He was also good to photograph.(May be the aboves saved him at the purge of the army officers)
In my opinion, he would have failed the test in WW2 just like Budenny had. ( So did the French and British high command)
You correctly listed the names of the generals who won the war for Russia. However, they are in the shadow of Zhukov.
Voroshilov - Easy to say, easy to remember. And after all, he was a hero of other time.

That's why I have his name.

BEST REGARDS: VOROSILOV

PS: You have many questions to answer at once. I will return later.( Or should I say: "I shall return".


[Edited by vorosilov on 2nd January 2002 at 05:06]

[ANDY-J2]

British governments were traditionally hostile towards Russia prior to WWII because of the threat which Russia posed to Britain's far eastern empire.During the Russo-Finnish war Churchill contemplated providing the Finns with military aid and his frequent outbursts of anti-Soviet rhetoric indicate that he like many in the British establishment hated the Soviet ideology.I think that the appeasement of the thirties can in part be blamed on the fact that disarmament had left Britain genuinely unprepared for war and also a very real desire to avoid at all costs being dragged into another bloody conflict like the First World War.This was also true for France where the Maginot mentality had diminished the characteristic elan and offensive spirit of the French military.Once the Germans had embarked on their invasion of Russia however I think the western powers were only too happy to see the Wehrmacht bled white on the Russian steppes and a large part of Britain's war effort went into manufacturing war material for the Soviet Union and I know that in the early stages of the war at least two RAF Hurricane squadrons were operating in northern Russia(Hurricanes over Murmansk-Golley.1987).It is true that the Red Army played a decisive role in defeating Germany however they were certainly helped to some extent by Western supplies-in particular vast quantities of American trucks which allowed the rapid movement of troops and equipment to different parts of the front.
I don't believe that either Hitler or Stalin were gifted strategists.I think German successes can be attributed to the fact that the Wehrmacht was in general very highly trained and motivated and the German officer corps produced officers of a very high calibre.Also the German's were equipped with many armaments that were ahead of their time.One example of this was the MG42 machine gun which was so advanced that US armament manufacturers copied it's design and,with a few modifications,created the M60 machine gun which is still in use today.

[Edited by ANDY-J2 on 1st January 2002 at 23:44]

[judes101]

Hey interested!
I question 2 (or 3?...sorry) you raise the issue of the role of the British and their policy of appeasement, and whether or not it is true to say that the British wanted a war in the East between the nazis and the USSR.
Firstly, about Czechoslovakia. In 1938, and Munich, the Sudetenland, inhabited by 3 million Germans was returned to Germany without Czech consent. Behind the scenes, The British and French had been offering the Czechs assurances that if they were to accept this, then these two allied nations would come to the aid of the Czech republic should war break out.
Chamberlain was extremely naive, and upon returning to britain he claimed he had restored 'peace for our time' having heard Hitler's promises to not launch a violent invasion against the rest of Czechoslovakia. At this stage, Chamberlain probably did genuinely believe that war could be prevented, not just postponed.
The full invasion of Czechoslovakia just a few short months later was important for two reasons. firstly, Czechoslovakia was home to one of the most modern democracies in the world, and had a rapidly growing economy and industrial base. A full scale invasion of such a nation, was, for the British, very close to home. Secondly, it proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler's motivations were aggressive, and that he did not simply want to return Germans to Germany. Perhaps this was in fact a mistake by Hitler. An invasion of Poland could have been justified on these lines since there were many Germans living in Southern and Western areas of the country.
Given that war was inevitable, the British also required time to build an army and airforce to take on the might of the luftwaffe. Between 1938 and 1941, the number of british fighter squadrons had increased 10 fold. If the war had broken out earlier, the British could never have won the battle of Britain, in the skies above britain, and perhaps Operation Sealion could have succeeded. On the other hand, this time also allowed the Germans to build up their Panzer divisions, leading to the swift and successful invasion of France. However, i think it is probably fair to say that appeasement was necessary, since Britain and France could not have stood up to Hitler without increasing their military strength significantly.
As for the Nazi-Soviet pact, it was potentially a masterstroke for both leaders. On the one hand, it allowed Hitler a war on one front, on the other hand, there was a chance that Stalin could sit back and watch his enemies destroy themselves. Of course, it turned out to be a much better deal for the Germans.
As for the USSR, they were keen to improve their relations with Britain, particularly in the early to mid thirties, under the policies of collective security and popular front. It was the british who had an underlying suspicion of the USSR, and who never really attempted to create an alliance. There was one mission, just prior to the outbreak of war known as the 'Drax mission', in which a lowly civil servant was sent BY BOAT from the british, arriving after a mere 8 weeks to meet with a Russian General. This display of incompetance and apathy on the part of the British convinced the Russians that a treaty with the British really wasn't a viable option. Molotov replaced Litvinov, and the treaty with Germany was signed. In my opinion, this was the biggest blunder of the war. If there had been a treaty between Britain, France and the USSR, Hitler could never have gained so much ground, and come so close to winning the war. It was only when the Americans came in and saved our asses that the tide began to turn (thank you Japan...). So i hope that in some way is my answer to your questions, sorry that i don't really know all the details.

Judes L.

[Interested]

Thanks, Judes, for your post. You displayed a deep knowledge of the events that led to WWII. The question of who was to blame for the war has always puzzled me. Of course everyone knows Hitler was Culprit No. 1 (I'm not trying to be politically correct) but even he was not mad enough to start a war against a coalition of France, Britain, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland (and the United States as a silent partner). Had there been such a coalition there would certainly have been no war. That being so, then why was there not such a united front to stop Hitler? Who was to blame for this failure?

Initially I tended to think the British were to blame. They stood idly by while the Nazis raped Austria. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves. Their action, or rather, inaction, convinced Hitler that he could get away with his aggressions. It was almost as if the British had promised Hitler a free rear if he marched East. You could say that Chamberlain was naive. However, unlike Hitler, who could personally decide everything and let his Reichstag go hang, Chamberlain had to consult his Cabinet colleagues and listen to the House of Commons. Were all these Cabinet ministers, all these Commons representatives naive people like Chamberlain? Unlike the Americans, who were rather idealistic and mere greenhorns in world affairs, the British were experienced diplomatic poker players, as everyone well knows. Chamberlain might be naive. But other British statesmen were certainly not. And Chamberlain alone could not shape or control the course of British policy. Furthermore, it did not require outstanding political acumen to see through Hitler's designs. The British were of course not privy to the Fuehrer's secret thoughts. But his actions (fortify the Rhineland, decree conscription, purge the General Staff of all opposition), his mad outbursts, his feverish rearmament (all that guns-before-butter stuff) were enough to convince even the most naive people of his real intentions. And even the most naive people did not have to wait until the full invasion of Czechoslovakia to see that Hitler did not merely want to bring all Germans into Germany. Hadn't he said again and again in Mein Kampf that his goal was to win more Lebensraum for his German people, that Germany's future lay in robbing Slavic lands in the East? I rather tended to believe that the British were damned smart. Austria and Czechoslovakia (and Poland too), which were after all not British territories, were a small price to pay for a seat to watch Germans and Russians bashing each other to death

But then the British declared war when Hitler invaded Poland. This move puzzled me. Why did the smart British reverse their course when they had almost reached their goal? Just one more step, just let Poland go, and they would be in the great stadium as spectators. Couldn't they pull another Munich? This is the puzzle I have not quite solved

As for your argument that appeasement was necessary because the Western Powers needed time to catch up with Germany in rearmament, this argument had been refuted by no less a personage than Winston Churchill. He said something about that in one of his splendid writings on WWII (I can't quite remember his words though). And you failed to point out that Munich cost the West the excellent Czech divisions entrenched behind their excellent fortifications on the Czech-German border while it [Munich] added the Skoda Works, the second largest war plant in Europe, to Germany. I need not mention the moral cost to the West here. So who gained more militarily from appeasement? Germany or the West?

The Nazi-Soviet Pact was as great a triumph for the Germans, who wanted war, as it was a failure for the USSR in the long run. It cost the Soviet Union more than 20 millions of their people, who DID NOT want war. As I said, if Stalin had not agreed to this deal, there would have been no war at all and nobody would have had to die. The "Drax Mission" was a lamentable affair, the failure of which, besides the slow boat and the lowly civil servant, was due largely to Polish shortsightedness and stupidity. However, Stalin must be aware of British pressure on the Poles to urge them to be more accommodating (Stalin's spies were so good then). The negotiations were wrecked because the Poles refused to grant passage to the Red Army through the Vilna Gap, not because the British motives were insincere. The French even wanted to go ahead to sign a military treaty with the USSR regardless of what the Poles might do

Lastly, the tide was turned thanks mostly to the Russians. The USA did very little fighting, if any, in the European theater before 1943 (Torch, the landing in North West Africa, was small stuff). By that time the tide, of course, had already turned. Lend-Lease of course helped. But its proportion has been exaggerated by the West

Phew ... what a long post. I have to go to bed now

Later, Judes

[_-_5TAL1N_-_]

Interested,
The refusal to withdraw from Kiev cost 678,967 soviet lives.
Also the point made about Zhukov being trained in Germany is false, my uncle has visited the Military School Zhukov enrolled in, sorry I do not remember the name. Zhukov was by far the best military strategist of WW2 followed closely by Rommel of the Wehrmacht forces, it was Russia that has to take full credit for the defeat of Nazism, Hitler could have taken Britain and a joint attack with Japan on the USA would have beat America into surrender. I believe the Soviets could have won the 2ndWW in 1 year if they were sure that Japan would not have attacked them as almost half their army was near the Manchurian border, Japan however learning thier lesson from Khalkin-Gol had not intention of attacking the Soviet Union. Khalkin-Gol was also the event where Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov was able to show his true ability and that brought him to the attention of Stalin. I would like to know who you guys think was the best strategic commander of WW2 after Zhukov and Rommel, in my opinion it was Ivan Koniev who demostrated his ability again and again. The battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the war but Interested German forces were the main spearhead not the Romanians, it was an intensive battle and Von Manstein stated that the Wehrmacht was forced to fight every house, tanks were not effective in urban warfare and an army of almost 300,000 was surrounded by Rokossovsky's army. In my opinion to put it in note form, the war was in 3 main wars, USSR vs Germany in Europe(USA and UK did not join until 1944), the second was Britain vs Italy in Africa and the Middle-East and the 3rd was the USA vs Japan in South Pacific(the Soviet Union did not join until 1945).
BEST REGARDS,
>>STALIN<<