Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hitler most certainly wasn't going to be satisfied with Poland.

Its a good question though. Hitler could have moved up Barbarossa.

Again why is it France and Britain didn't declare war on the USSR when they took half of Poland?

I believe the British PM of the day, Neville Chamberlain, is quoted as replying to that exact question with "I will not enter a war we cannot win." or words to that effect. Of the two, it was decided that Germany was not just the most immediate threat to Europe (Stalin had little interest in West Europe at the time) but also the easiest target to take on.

If it were simply a case of attacking the morally worst nation, Russia would have been at war with the rest of the world. For all the horror of Hitler's genocides, they were nothing compared to Stalin's Terror in Russia. I believe the estimated death toll in Russia from the Purges and associated acts is 80 million, with more recent findings suggesting that's actually lowballing a bit.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hitler most certainly wasn't going to be satisfied with Poland.

Its a good question though. Hitler could have moved up Barbarossa.

Again why is it France and Britain didn't declare war on the USSR when they took half of Poland?

Germany first policy is the reason.

As for Barbarossa, never going to happen if you're still fighting France and Britain. It would have been suicide for Germany.

Thank God for all of us that we didn't!

Since the ultimatum to Germany had already failed to have any effect it clearly would be pointless to issue an ultimatum to the Soviets too, who would be even more difficult to get at if we had wanted to.

The fact is that neither France nor Britain were hugely keen, or strategically well positioned to help Poland, but the ultimatums to Germany were issued on the general basis that something had to be done to stop Hitler and maybe this would be enough. Only it wasn't.

If the French had followed up with a full-blooded invasion of the Rhineland, while the Germans were busy in Poland, it might have done some good.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


British policy for 200 years had always been to thwart anybody with designs on controlling Europe. Britain was always going to war, plus, they had pledged to guarantee Poland's security.

As I've said, the fall of France is important for 3 reasons:

1) If Germany is still fighting France and Britain in the west, then it's not invading the Soviet Union. Germans won't make the mistakes of 1914. Moscow 1941 goes straight out of the window

2) France's defeat encourages Italy to declare war. Italy eyes up Britain's empire in the Middle East and Africa. Britain is forced to split its forces. Soon after the fall of France, Britain tells Australia and New Zealand that Mediterranean commitments against the Italians = less defence for the Far east. Stalin correctly predicts Russia is next. Almost the day after France signs armistice, Hitler orders planning for the Invasion of the Soviet Union.

3) Japan takes over Indo-China from France. Japan knows that Britain is stretched against Italy and Germany, and thus, Far East defences are weak. Japan eyes British possessions and the Dutch east indies as well, of course, due to Holland's defeat.

So yeah, the Fall of France is the catalyst for invasion of the Soviet Union, and Japanese expansionism, in my view. It's importance should never be overlooked.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but the above in bold is absolutely not true. Hitler didn't start thinking about the Invasion of the Soviet Union until after the Battle of Britain, a good few months later. Additionally, Stalin most certainly did not predict Russia was next. Barbarossa was a complete surprise for him in the face of overwhelming intelligence to the contrary. Hitler actually told him troop concentration in the east were there to practice amphibious landings in the UK, and Stalin believed him.

Also, again, the fall of France had little to no bearing on Japanese expansionism. The country needed oil it was no longer getting from the US, there was no other choice but to engage in some good old fashioned imperialism. Not that that was a problem as Japan wished to be an imperial power anyway and already had every intention to contest Western dominance in the Pacific from the get go.

Stalin and many other Communists believed the Soviet Union would be attacked by the capitalist countries. Lenin* predicted that the country would have twenty years after the Civil war before they were invaded. Stalin had believed that the non-aggression pact would buy him more time, at least until Britain had been defeated. Stalin did not believe that Germany would start (another) war on two fronts.

* This may have been Stalin, need to check.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Stalin and many other Communists believed the Soviet Union would be attacked by the capitalist countries. Lenin* predicted that the country would have twenty years after the Civil war before they were invaded. Stalin had believed that the non-aggression pact would buy him more time, at least until Britain had been defeated. Stalin did not believe that Germany would start (another) war on two fronts.

* This may have been Stalin, need to check.

Lenin (and Trotsky) certainly knew the resentment the rest of the world held for the new Communist Russia, so even if they didn't say it explicitly, it would have been inherent in their politics and general outlook. It was definitely Stalin, though, that said in the late 1920s that Russia needed to 'make good' the industrial/technological gap with the West in within 10 years, hence the introduction of the Five Year Plans, a period of isolationism and playing for time with Hitler.

Incidentally, this actually worked against him in the end on some ways; the 'modernisation' of the military and industrial infrastructure came so fast in the early 30s that by the time was did break out, it was five years out of date. As I mentioned before, if the Red Army had had the technology, equipment and industry on par with the Wehrmacht, the war would have been much, much shorter...

 Paradigm wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:
Stalin and many other Communists believed the Soviet Union would be attacked by the capitalist countries. Lenin* predicted that the country would have twenty years after the Civil war before they were invaded. Stalin had believed that the non-aggression pact would buy him more time, at least until Britain had been defeated. Stalin did not believe that Germany would start (another) war on two fronts.

* This may have been Stalin, need to check.

Lenin (and Trotsky) certainly knew the resentment the rest of the world held for the new Communist Russia, so even if they didn't say it explicitly, it would have been inherent in their politics and general outlook. It was definitely Stalin, though, that said in the late 1920s that Russia needed to 'make good' the industrial/technological gap with the West in within 10 years, hence the introduction of the Five Year Plans, a period of isolationism and playing for time with Hitler.

Incidentally, this actually worked against him in the end on some ways; the 'modernisation' of the military and industrial infrastructure came so fast in the early 30s that by the time was did break out, it was five years out of date. As I mentioned before, if the Red Army had had the technology, equipment and industry on par with the Wehrmacht, the war would have been much, much shorter...

I would actually argue that the Red Army already had a technological, industrial, and equipment advantage when war broke out. The T--34 was light years ahead of the competition and actually managed to have good speed, armour, and armament - something which was thought to be impossible at the time. The sloped armour gave it way more protection than the thickness of the plating would normally allow, the wide treads and light weight of the vehicle gave it incredible cross country speed and maneuverability, and the 76mm cannon was far more powerful than anything the German tanks were using in 1941. Newer Soviet aircraft were also very impressive machines, but most of the Red Air Force was still using older and more obsolete aircraft in 1941.

It's pretty much the same story for equipment as well as industry. German troops actually favored Soviet gear because it was much sturdier and robust than what they were using, particularly their SMGS. Industry is where they really throttle the Germans. Even as early as 1941, when the relocation efforts began, the Soviets still managed to produce more tanks, guns, and aircraft than the Germans did.

Technology and equipment really wasn't the problem, the abysmal performance of the Red Army comes squarely down on ineffective leadership, weak command and control, and Stalin's incessant meddling.

@ Paradigm:I disagree. Many pieces of Soviet equipment was the equal or sometimes better than German equipment. The Soviet Union's problem in 1941 is that it is all in the western part of the Soviet Union, especially the arms industry and the majority of the population remains rural and ill educated. Ten years wasn't enough time to do what the capitalist countries had done in a century or more. The Soviet union had made great efforts to come to an agreement with Britain and France before the Non-aggression pact, they were rebuffed. With good reason in fairness.

[edit] Ninja'd

The leadership was certainly a mess; you can't just wipe out a generation of officers just because they might disagree with you then expect your army to be run competently. Especially once you also start insisting that there's no way your openly hostile, heavily armed and ideologicallly diametrically opposed neighbour would ever launch an invasion!

On the equipment, the Russian kit of 1941 might have been decent, but large parts of the army were still using the kit of 1935, at least according to some sources I recall reading. So while I agree with you in principle, I do think there's a world of difference between the Red Army at peak effectiveness and the one acting in 41.


And I just wanted to add that this is a great thread! Lots of very interesting stuff being posted from knowledgeable sources, I'm learning a lot!

There wasn't that much ideological difference with the officers who were purged. Many of them were Troskyites (Who had been commander of the Red Army) Karamanevites, Zinovievites and so on rather than 'whites'. Most of them were sent to the Gulags, from where they were quickly returned when the war began.

Yes a lot of their older equipment was still in use, the BT-7 was the standard tank of the Red Army (in the process of being replaced by the T-34). The USSR has more tanks than the rest of the world combined.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Another what if:

What if France and the UK hadn't declared war on Germany 2 days after Germany invaded Poland? Would Hitler be content with carving up Poland with the Soviet Union and then calling it quits, given he had gotten Danzig and pretty much all territories lost by Imperial Germany after WW1, or would he have attacked France due to historic grievances anyway?

Or would he have left the Western front alone and gone forward with his plans of attacking Russia?

A history where Great Britain doesn't pledge support to Poland is interesting, and quite plausible. I mean, as far as great historical blunders go that one is right up there, as Britain had no capability to aid Poland, and they didn't bother to ensure the support of the one ally who could support Poland - the Soviet Union. It was intended to be the long overdue line in the sand that Germany could not cross, but it was such a weak gesture it basically goaded Hitler in to attacking.

Funnily enough Hitler, who thought pretty much entirely in national stereotypes, held too strong an opinion of Britain at this time - he thought them far too rational to actually uphold their meaningless pledge to support Poland.

Anyhow, what if Britain had never made that pledge, or made it more meaningfully by securing Soviet support (no sure thing given Polish fear of Nazi Germany), or instead made that pledge in defence of Czechoslovakia, perhaps with Polish support?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
British policy for 200 years had always been to thwart anybody with designs on controlling Europe. Britain was always going to war, plus, they had pledged to guarantee Poland's security.

Sure, but the way Britain did it was haphazard and full of errors. They made a judgement call that Czechoslovakia was incapable of defending itself, while believing Poland was capable of such - based pretty much just on a count of total divisions. But they completely missed the difference in quality - the Czechs had a modern weapons industry with well equipped troops, the Poles did not. If you want to pick a fight in Europe to keep Germany in check, Czechoslovakia was the fight to pick.

The British have also historically worked well at building alliances when thwarting continental powers from expanding, but in this case they absolutely screwed the pooch in securing Soviet support - the one meaningful ally in preventing Hitler's expansion East.

2) France's defeat encourages Italy to declare war. Italy eyes up Britain's empire in the Middle East and Africa. Britain is forced to split its forces. Soon after the fall of France, Britain tells Australia and New Zealand that Mediterranean commitments against the Italians = less defence for the Far east.

This one really does lay squarely with Churchill. Senior British command was committed to the pre-war doctrine of Britain, then Singapore, then the rest, but Churchill was fixated with Africa - modern planes and new divisions were diverted to North Africa, while Singapore had to make do. Mind you, neglect of Fortress Singapore started in the early 30s.

So yeah, the Fall of France is the catalyst for invasion of the Soviet Union, and Japanese expansionism, in my view. It's importance should never be overlooked.

The Fall of France is one of the great debacles of military history, and it directly opened the door for the five years of carnage that followed. No doubt about that. My own hypotheticals here have been looking at what might have happened if that disaster never occurred.

However, it isn't a turning point, because it was a boon for the side that eventually lost anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
If it were simply a case of attacking the morally worst nation, Russia would have been at war with the rest of the world. For all the horror of Hitler's genocides, they were nothing compared to Stalin's Terror in Russia. I believe the estimated death toll in Russia from the Purges and associated acts is 80 million, with more recent findings suggesting that's actually lowballing a bit.

You can't just add up the death toll and declare a most evil regime though. Much of the Soviet death toll is a direct result of bad land reforms and the ensuing famine. That's horrible in all sorts of ways, but isn't on the same level as the industrialised execution undertaken by the Nazis.

There's also the fact that between Lenin and Stalin you have 30 years of tyranny - Hitler had to make do with just 10.

I mean, if you just ranking by death toll then the British Empire overtakes just about everyone other than the Soviets, Nazis and the CCP just through bad agricultural policy in India. Do you really want to use a metric that makes the British Empire 'more evil' than the Khmer Rouge?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Germany first policy is the reason.

Germany was seen as the dominant threat, and that's the major reason, for sure. The other reason is that, well, what's the point in declaring war if you have no means to fight it? Britain and France were so unsure of their ability to project power outside of France that they barely even probed the German defences during their attack on Poland, going to the other side of Europe to fight the Soviets was a much greater enterprise.

Interestingly enough, though, the British and French actually offered 50,000 troops to Finland when it was under attack by the Soviets in 1940. Had British and French troops been lost there (as their presence would have done nothing to change the inevitability of that fight), I wonder how the future alliance might have been altered?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Also, again, the fall of France had little to no bearing on Japanese expansionism. The country needed oil it was no longer getting from the US, there was no other choice but to engage in some good old fashioned imperialism. Not that that was a problem as Japan wished to be an imperial power anyway and already had every intention to contest Western dominance in the Pacific from the get go.

The Fall of France left Indo-China without French protection, and stripped British resources away from defence of their territories in the Far East.

Whether Japan would have attempted some kind of attack anyway is a good question, but it was with British and French troubles in Europe that it become a much easier task.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
It's pretty much the same story for equipment as well as industry. German troops actually favored Soviet gear because it was much sturdier and robust than what they were using, particularly their SMGS. Industry is where they really throttle the Germans. Even as early as 1941, when the relocation efforts began, the Soviets still managed to produce more tanks, guns, and aircraft than the Germans did.

Soviet production was greater, but it wasn't because they had more industry. If you look at measures like electricity production you see Germany actually has about a 50% advantage, and that's before you account for captured and supporting territories.

The difference is in the efficiency of design. A classic example is in tank production - the Soviets continued to reform their production, but every step was about getting the tanks made faster - efforts like underwater welding were used just to shave minutes of the time a tank was under production. They came up with the remarkable idea of figuring out how long an average tank actually ran before it was destroyed for good, and then only maintained quality standards that were good enough to last that long.

Compare that to German tank design - there were 250 changes made to the Tiger over its life, out of about 1,300 actually built - so on average every sixth Tiger built is different than the one before. That means a tank built on Monday is a different machine than the one that rolls off the floor on Wednesday. And none of these design changes were about simplifying the design, but were almost all minor technical changes with little impact on performance.

That was the great Soviet advantage. Well, that and the unwillingness of Germany to shift to total war.

Technology and equipment really wasn't the problem, the abysmal performance of the Red Army comes squarely down on ineffective leadership, weak command and control, and Stalin's incessant meddling.

Yeah, they basically started the war with a gross shortage of quality officers at every level, and then lost most of the ones they did have in the first couple of months. The next year is basically Russia building a whole new army while fighting a war on an extraordinary scale.

It is only by 1943 that you begin to see technical and professional qualities really emerge in the Soviet army. From there on you get something of a parity in the two armies, albeit with the kill count still favouring the Germans through the natural advantages of defence.

 sebster wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
Another what if:

What if France and the UK hadn't declared war on Germany 2 days after Germany invaded Poland? Would Hitler be content with carving up Poland with the Soviet Union and then calling it quits, given he had gotten Danzig and pretty much all territories lost by Imperial Germany after WW1, or would he have attacked France due to historic grievances anyway?

Or would he have left the Western front alone and gone forward with his plans of attacking Russia?

A history where Great Britain doesn't pledge support to Poland is interesting, and quite plausible. I mean, as far as great historical blunders go that one is right up there, as Britain had no capability to aid Poland, and they didn't bother to ensure the support of the one ally who could support Poland - the Soviet Union. It was intended to be the long overdue line in the sand that Germany could not cross, but it was such a weak gesture it basically goaded Hitler in to attacking.

Funnily enough Hitler, who thought pretty much entirely in national stereotypes, held too strong an opinion of Britain at this time - he thought them far too rational to actually uphold their meaningless pledge to support Poland.

Anyhow, what if Britain had never made that pledge, or made it more meaningfully by securing Soviet support (no sure thing given Polish fear of Nazi Germany), or instead made that pledge in defence of Czechoslovakia, perhaps with Polish support?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
British policy for 200 years had always been to thwart anybody with designs on controlling Europe. Britain was always going to war, plus, they had pledged to guarantee Poland's security.

Sure, but the way Britain did it was haphazard and full of errors. They made a judgement call that Czechoslovakia was incapable of defending itself, while believing Poland was capable of such - based pretty much just on a count of total divisions. But they completely missed the difference in quality - the Czechs had a modern weapons industry with well equipped troops, the Poles did not. If you want to pick a fight in Europe to keep Germany in check, Czechoslovakia was the fight to pick.

The British have also historically worked well at building alliances when thwarting continental powers from expanding, but in this case they absolutely screwed the pooch in securing Soviet support - the one meaningful ally in preventing Hitler's expansion East.

2) France's defeat encourages Italy to declare war. Italy eyes up Britain's empire in the Middle East and Africa. Britain is forced to split its forces. Soon after the fall of France, Britain tells Australia and New Zealand that Mediterranean commitments against the Italians = less defence for the Far east.

This one really does lay squarely with Churchill. Senior British command was committed to the pre-war doctrine of Britain, then Singapore, then the rest, but Churchill was fixated with Africa - modern planes and new divisions were diverted to North Africa, while Singapore had to make do. Mind you, neglect of Fortress Singapore started in the early 30s.

So yeah, the Fall of France is the catalyst for invasion of the Soviet Union, and Japanese expansionism, in my view. It's importance should never be overlooked.

The Fall of France is one of the great debacles of military history, and it directly opened the door for the five years of carnage that followed. No doubt about that. My own hypotheticals here have been looking at what might have happened if that disaster never occurred.

However, it isn't a turning point, because it was a boon for the side that eventually lost anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
If it were simply a case of attacking the morally worst nation, Russia would have been at war with the rest of the world. For all the horror of Hitler's genocides, they were nothing compared to Stalin's Terror in Russia. I believe the estimated death toll in Russia from the Purges and associated acts is 80 million, with more recent findings suggesting that's actually lowballing a bit.

You can't just add up the death toll and declare a most evil regime though. Much of the Soviet death toll is a direct result of bad land reforms and the ensuing famine. That's horrible in all sorts of ways, but isn't on the same level as the industrialised execution undertaken by the Nazis.

There's also the fact that between Lenin and Stalin you have 30 years of tyranny - Hitler had to make do with just 10.

I mean, if you just ranking by death toll then the British Empire overtakes just about everyone other than the Soviets, Nazis and the CCP just through bad agricultural policy in India. Do you really want to use a metric that makes the British Empire 'more evil' than the Khmer Rouge?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Germany first policy is the reason.

Germany was seen as the dominant threat, and that's the major reason, for sure. The other reason is that, well, what's the point in declaring war if you have no means to fight it? Britain and France were so unsure of their ability to project power outside of France that they barely even probed the German defences during their attack on Poland, going to the other side of Europe to fight the Soviets was a much greater enterprise.

Interestingly enough, though, the British and French actually offered 50,000 troops to Finland when it was under attack by the Soviets in 1940. Had British and French troops been lost there (as their presence would have done nothing to change the inevitability of that fight), I wonder how the future alliance might have been altered?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Also, again, the fall of France had little to no bearing on Japanese expansionism. The country needed oil it was no longer getting from the US, there was no other choice but to engage in some good old fashioned imperialism. Not that that was a problem as Japan wished to be an imperial power anyway and already had every intention to contest Western dominance in the Pacific from the get go.

The Fall of France left Indo-China without French protection, and stripped British resources away from defence of their territories in the Far East.

Whether Japan would have attempted some kind of attack anyway is a good question, but it was with British and French troubles in Europe that it become a much easier task.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
It's pretty much the same story for equipment as well as industry. German troops actually favored Soviet gear because it was much sturdier and robust than what they were using, particularly their SMGS. Industry is where they really throttle the Germans. Even as early as 1941, when the relocation efforts began, the Soviets still managed to produce more tanks, guns, and aircraft than the Germans did.

Soviet production was greater, but it wasn't because they had more industry. If you look at measures like electricity production you see Germany actually has about a 50% advantage, and that's before you account for captured and supporting territories.

The difference is in the efficiency of design. A classic example is in tank production - the Soviets continued to reform their production, but every step was about getting the tanks made faster - efforts like underwater welding were used just to shave minutes of the time a tank was under production. They came up with the remarkable idea of figuring out how long an average tank actually ran before it was destroyed for good, and then only maintained quality standards that were good enough to last that long.

Compare that to German tank design - there were 250 changes made to the Tiger over its life, out of about 1,300 actually built - so on average every sixth Tiger built is different than the one before. That means a tank built on Monday is a different machine than the one that rolls off the floor on Wednesday. And none of these design changes were about simplifying the design, but were almost all minor technical changes with little impact on performance.

That was the great Soviet advantage. Well, that and the unwillingness of Germany to shift to total war.

Technology and equipment really wasn't the problem, the abysmal performance of the Red Army comes squarely down on ineffective leadership, weak command and control, and Stalin's incessant meddling.

Yeah, they basically started the war with a gross shortage of quality officers at every level, and then lost most of the ones they did have in the first couple of months. The next year is basically Russia building a whole new army while fighting a war on an extraordinary scale.

It is only by 1943 that you begin to see technical and professional qualities really emerge in the Soviet army. From there on you get something of a parity in the two armies, albeit with the kill count still favouring the Germans through the natural advantages of defence.

To address some of your points.

A deal with the Soviets was never going to happen. Historical mistrust, plus the Soviets wanted chunks of Poland back which Russia had lost during the Polish war of independence. This was unacceptable to Britain, and of course, you can imagine Poland's reaction to Soviet Demands.

As for Singapore, there was no neglect of its defences. Billions were spent upgrading Singapore's defences against seaborne attack. Of course, the Japanese attacked from another direction, which is a separate matter!

Churchill's fixation with Africa and the ME is pretty logical. The route to India, the Middle East oilfields, an alliance in the Mediterranean with Greece and Yugoslavia etc. etc.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 George Spiggott wrote:
There wasn't that much ideological difference with the officers who were purged. Many of them were Troskyites (Who had been commander of the Red Army) Karamanevites, Zinovievites and so on rather than 'whites'. Most of them were sent to the Gulags, from where they were quickly returned when the war began.

Yes a lot of their older equipment was still in use, the BT-7 was the standard tank of the Red Army (in the process of being replaced by the T-34). The USSR has more tanks than the rest of the world combined.

Nothing wrong with the BT-7 it was a half decent tank for its time, and a match for Panzer I,II,III, and those Czech tanks the Germans used. 38t??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


British policy for 200 years had always been to thwart anybody with designs on controlling Europe. Britain was always going to war, plus, they had pledged to guarantee Poland's security.

As I've said, the fall of France is important for 3 reasons:

1) If Germany is still fighting France and Britain in the west, then it's not invading the Soviet Union. Germans won't make the mistakes of 1914. Moscow 1941 goes straight out of the window

2) France's defeat encourages Italy to declare war. Italy eyes up Britain's empire in the Middle East and Africa. Britain is forced to split its forces. Soon after the fall of France, Britain tells Australia and New Zealand that Mediterranean commitments against the Italians = less defence for the Far east. Stalin correctly predicts Russia is next. Almost the day after France signs armistice, Hitler orders planning for the Invasion of the Soviet Union.

3) Japan takes over Indo-China from France. Japan knows that Britain is stretched against Italy and Germany, and thus, Far East defences are weak. Japan eyes British possessions and the Dutch east indies as well, of course, due to Holland's defeat.

So yeah, the Fall of France is the catalyst for invasion of the Soviet Union, and Japanese expansionism, in my view. It's importance should never be overlooked.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but the above in bold is absolutely not true. Hitler didn't start thinking about the Invasion of the Soviet Union until after the Battle of Britain, a good few months later. Additionally, Stalin most certainly did not predict Russia was next. Barbarossa was a complete surprise for him in the face of overwhelming intelligence to the contrary. Hitler actually told him troop concentration in the east were there to practice amphibious landings in the UK, and Stalin believed him.

Also, again, the fall of France had little to no bearing on Japanese expansionism. The country needed oil it was no longer getting from the US, there was no other choice but to engage in some good old fashioned imperialism. Not that that was a problem as Japan wished to be an imperial power anyway and already had every intention to contest Western dominance in the Pacific from the get go.

The Dutch East Indies was the number one source in the world for rubber and other war materials. Holland has fallen. Who's going to stop Japan from taking over?

Stalin seized the Baltic states a few weeks later to act as a buffer zone against Germany. Stalin also sped up re-armament and mobilization of the Red Army. Again, as a consequence of France's fall.

My informatiov comes from 'The Fall of France' by Julian Jackson. It's a good book and one I'd recommended to everybody.

 sebster wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
If it were simply a case of attacking the morally worst nation, Russia would have been at war with the rest of the world. For all the horror of Hitler's genocides, they were nothing compared to Stalin's Terror in Russia. I believe the estimated death toll in Russia from the Purges and associated acts is 80 million, with more recent findings suggesting that's actually lowballing a bit.

You can't just add up the death toll and declare a most evil regime though. Much of the Soviet death toll is a direct result of bad land reforms and the ensuing famine. That's horrible in all sorts of ways, but isn't on the same level as the industrialised execution undertaken by the Nazis.

There's also the fact that between Lenin and Stalin you have 30 years of tyranny - Hitler had to make do with just 10.

I mean, if you just ranking by death toll then the British Empire overtakes just about everyone other than the Soviets, Nazis and the CCP just through bad agricultural policy in India. Do you really want to use a metric that makes the British Empire 'more evil' than the Khmer Rouge?

.

True. It just rankles me a bit when people try and make out that the Holocaust is the worst thing to ever happen in the 20th Century while Russia's very similar actions get somewhat swept under the carpet (at least on the level of the general public, if not those actually studying history) just because they basically won us the war. It's the same with the Russian invasion of Poland that I'd guess most non-academics aren't familiar with, and what went on there which was really just as bad as what the Nazis did with their half.

I'd add, though, that none of this is trying to in any way belittle the horiffic war crimes the Nazis committed, just to point out that at the same time, our 'allies' were doing equally terrible things. Even if you leave aside the 'accidental' deaths by famine, the Purges and associated Gulag deaths are still just as inexcusable as the Holocaust, and I do think more people need to be aware of it.

 sebster wrote:
But they completely missed the difference in quality - the Czechs had a modern weapons industry with well equipped troops, the Poles did not. If you want to pick a fight in Europe to keep Germany in check, Czechoslovakia was the fight to pick.

Poland may have worked if only the Germans attacked. Czechoslovakia on the other hand is unworkable without Soviet aid (which the Poles and French effectively blocked). There was a sizeable German demographic in Czechoslovakia, almost a quarter of the population, which wanted union with Germany and ran through all strata of society. That includes the army.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Nothing wrong with the BT-7 it was a half decent tank for its time, and a match for Panzer I,II,III, and those Czech tanks the Germans used. 38t??

I was going to add something similar but it doesn’t represent Soviet advances in technology.

 George Spiggott wrote:

 sebster wrote:
But they completely missed the difference in quality - the Czechs had a modern weapons industry with well equipped troops, the Poles did not. If you want to pick a fight in Europe to keep Germany in check, Czechoslovakia was the fight to pick.

Poland may have worked if only the Germans attacked. Czechoslovakia on the other hand is unworkable without Soviet aid (which the Poles and French effectively blocked). There was a sizeable German demographic in Czechoslovakia, almost a quarter of the population, which wanted union with Germany and ran through all strata of society. That includes the army.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Nothing wrong with the BT-7 it was a half decent tank for its time, and a match for Panzer I,II,III, and those Czech tanks the Germans used. 38t??

I was going to add something similar but it doesn’t represent Soviet advances in technology.

You'll probably know better than me, but the Soviet tank force on June 1941 was a pretty formidable force on Paper. BT-7, like I said, could match most German tanks, and I'm pretty sure the T-26 or T-28? (not the multi-turret tank, but the light tank ) was a match for the light German tanks. Their armoured cars had the same armament (or similar) to a Panzer III and of course, the KV-1 and the T-34s were the ace in the hole.

As others have said, lack of radios and training was the Red Army weakness, but their Far East unites that had fought against Japan, were a good force.

If Germany had invaded Russia without declaring war on the allies, would they have still supported the soviet as they did IRL? Obviously Britain and France didn't want Germany to get back to its WW1 power level but they would have liked to see Communism gone as well.

 sing your life wrote:
If Germany had invaded Russia without declaring war on the allies, would they have still supported the soviet as they did IRL? Obviously Britain and France didn't want Germany to get back to its WW1 power level but they would have liked to see Communism gone as well.

Probably would have been content to let both sides slug it out and wait and see what happened next.

 sing your life wrote:
If Germany had invaded Russia without declaring war on the allies, would they have still supported the soviet as they did IRL? Obviously Britain and France didn't want Germany to get back to its WW1 power level but they would have liked to see Communism gone as well.

Good question. Given that a large factor in the 30s appeasement of Hitler was the 'better the devil you know' attitude (a European tyranny was at least familiar, as opposed to this scary newfangled Communism that no one really understood) I think it's possible that, to take it to extremes, Hitler had only invaded Russia, somehow ignoring the nations in the way, Britain and France may have stayed out, at least initially to buy some more time. I've no idea how that could ever happen, though, without Poland getting occupied and other nations getting involved.

 Paradigm wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
If Germany had invaded Russia without declaring war on the allies, would they have still supported the soviet as they did IRL? Obviously Britain and France didn't want Germany to get back to its WW1 power level but they would have liked to see Communism gone as well.

Good question. Given that a large factor in the 30s appeasement of Hitler was the 'better the devil you know' attitude (a European tyranny was at least familiar, as opposed to this scary newfangled Communism that no one really understood) I think it's possible that, to take it to extremes, Hitler had only invaded Russia, somehow ignoring the nations in the way, Britain and France may have stayed out, at least initially to buy some more time. I've no idea how that could ever happen, though, without Poland getting occupied and other nations getting involved.

Eastern Europe was always Hitler's aim. As you know, he wrote and talked many a time about 'acquiring' 'living space' for Germany to grow.

One of his aims... Right under Total Domination of Europe

I can't see a reality where Britain and France don't get involved at some point, even as aggressors. Say Hitler did take out the USSR without starting a World War, I wouldn't put it past the Allies to actually launch an attack of their own on a weakened Germany, especially if word of the genocides got out as well. They may have had a policy of appeasing Hitler, but they were equally aware of the threat he posed.

German speaking French and Swiss people's were never part of the Nazi plan before the War. Even if Germany did not go to war with France and Britain peace with Greater Germany would not be desirable in the long term either. I don't see how Germany can invade the Soviet Union directly without going through Poland in some fashion. East Prussia is too geographically remote (as an exclave) to launch an attack from and doesn't border the Ukraine where most of the German advances were. Territorially speaking German desires in WWII don't differ much from those in WWI

Bear in mind it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany for the invasion of Poland because it was thought Hitler's antics had got out of hand, rather than specifically to save Poland.

It is difficult to see how Germany could have got at the USSR properly without having invaded Poland first, which presumably would have triggered war anyway.

If it had not, it seems likely France and Britain might have declared war after a German invasion of SU, on the principle that Hitler really has gone too far this time.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To address some of your points.

A deal with the Soviets was never going to happen. Historical mistrust, plus the Soviets wanted chunks of Poland back which Russia had lost during the Polish war of independence. This was unacceptable to Britain, and of course, you can imagine Poland's reaction to Soviet Demands.

It’s 1942, what is or isn’t acceptable to Britain and Poland is irrelevant. If a new Soviet/Nazi deal was made, then Britain and the Polish government in exile might complain about it all they like, but they were powerless to threaten it.

The deal failed, simply, because Germany failed to understand how weak its own position was. Had they properly understood it, they would have likely

As for Singapore, there was no neglect of its defences. Billions were spent upgrading Singapore's defences against seaborne attack. Of course, the Japanese attacked from another direction, which is a separate matter!

Billions were spent, but they were a fraction of the amount intended.

The overland attack coming as a surprise is an old story, and is often misunderstood (I don’t mean to imply you misunderstand it, but am just expanding it anyway). The British put defences over the inland route, there was a full corps posted to Malaya. The upset is how woefully this larger force (and the additional troops in Singapore) proved in fighting the Japanese.

The problem was the Japanese skill in flanking through the jungle, and the quality of support their aircraft gave. In contrast the UK spread their forces thin, to protect airfields with a handful of outdated planes on them. Had modern planes diverted to Africa been available, it might have been a much different story.

Churchill's fixation with Africa and the ME is pretty logical. The route to India, the Middle East oilfields, an alliance in the Mediterranean with Greece and Yugoslavia etc. etc.

The Middle East mattered, but pouring all new production not needed for defence of Britain in to Africa was a massive gamble. It meant there were few aircraft in Singapore, and almost no frontline planes. It was, at best, a gamble that went terribly wrong, and by a less generous assessment it was a massive blunder – the key resources of Africa (Cairo and everything east of it) could have been held with far fewer troops, just by maintaining a defensive posture.

Nothing wrong with the BT-7 it was a half decent tank for its time, and a match for Panzer I,II,III, and those Czech tanks the Germans used. 38t??

I understand a lot of the negative reputation came from the number of tanks that were unavailable at the outbreak of the war, or that broke down rapidly after fighting began. Which wasn’t due to any inherent mechanical unreliability in the tank, but the shoddy state of maintenance in the Soviet army at that time.

 Paradigm wrote:
True. It just rankles me a bit when people try and make out that the Holocaust is the worst thing to ever happen in the 20th Century while Russia's very similar actions get somewhat swept under the carpet (at least on the level of the general public, if not those actually studying history) just because they basically won us the war. It's the same with the Russian invasion of Poland that I'd guess most non-academics aren't familiar with, and what went on there which was really just as bad as what the Nazis did with their half.

That’s a good point well made. That said, I’m not sure it’s just a case of the Soviets being our allies, after all they were great enemy of the Cold War, so there was every motivation to make as much of a deal as possible about their atrocities. We did, sort of, but not in a way that every really stuck in the public conscious as much as the atrocities of the Nazis.

I don’t really know why that is. Maybe, when you look at other atrocities from other regimes, the CCP, the Khmer Rouge, the Armenian Genocide, perhaps public indifference and ignorance is the norm? Perhaps the knowledge of the holocaust is unusual, possibly a product of some excellent historical work, some excellent films on the subject, and the Nazis being such a nice villain – pure evil that we decisively beat.

I don’t know, you raise a good point and I’m just trying to think through it.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Poland may have worked if only the Germans attacked. Czechoslovakia on the other hand is unworkable without Soviet aid (which the Poles and French effectively blocked). There was a sizeable German demographic in Czechoslovakia, almost a quarter of the population, which wanted union with Germany and ran through all strata of society. That includes the army.

Poland was utterly defeated before the Russians crossed the border. Seriously, the bulk of the forces had been cut off from communications and supply by an armoured pincer. There was no saving them. Even if they hadn’t put up such an outmoded defence, their divisions were almost all lightly armed infantry, with negligible air power.

The point about the German population in Czechoslovakia is a good one, but I’d take that risk over the Polish army anyday. If nothing else, most of Czechoslovakia fighting for you is better than all of the Czech munitions in service of Germany.

 sing your life wrote:
If Germany had invaded Russia without declaring war on the allies, would they have still supported the soviet as they did IRL? Obviously Britain and France didn't want Germany to get back to its WW1 power level but they would have liked to see Communism gone as well.

Britain declared war on Germany, and France reluctantly followed. Hitler never wanted that war, he always wanted expansion in the East.

Even if Britain has just watched Poland get swallowed up, it still would have ceased trade and done as much as possible to block supply to Germany. Just sitting back and watching a dominant European power military expand across the continent would have flown in the face of centuries of British foreign policy. Effectively you’d get blockade, just as it happened (and was Britain’s major contribution to the war).

Similarly, the primary focus of French foreign policy for about a century had been preventing the potential for German dominance – they aren’t going to watch Germany expand ever eastwards, absorbing large swathes of land and resources.

They may not have just launched in to attack though. Likely they would have attempted to use the threat of attack on Germany to force a peace.

 sebster wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
True. It just rankles me a bit when people try and make out that the Holocaust is the worst thing to ever happen in the 20th Century while Russia's very similar actions get somewhat swept under the carpet (at least on the level of the general public, if not those actually studying history) just because they basically won us the war. It's the same with the Russian invasion of Poland that I'd guess most non-academics aren't familiar with, and what went on there which was really just as bad as what the Nazis did with their half.

That’s a good point well made. That said, I’m not sure it’s just a case of the Soviets being our allies, after all they were great enemy of the Cold War, so there was every motivation to make as much of a deal as possible about their atrocities. We did, sort of, but not in a way that every really stuck in the public conscious as much as the atrocities of the Nazis.

I don’t really know why that is. Maybe, when you look at other atrocities from other regimes, the CCP, the Khmer Rouge, the Armenian Genocide, perhaps public indifference and ignorance is the norm? Perhaps the knowledge of the holocaust is unusual, possibly a product of some excellent historical work, some excellent films on the subject, and the Nazis being such a nice villain – pure evil that we decisively beat.

My pet theory is that Germany was the only "proper" (white) civilisation to commit such atrocities. All the others were "lesser" (non-white) civilisations. It's more shocking to us because the Germans were us.

 feeder wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
True. It just rankles me a bit when people try and make out that the Holocaust is the worst thing to ever happen in the 20th Century while Russia's very similar actions get somewhat swept under the carpet (at least on the level of the general public, if not those actually studying history) just because they basically won us the war. It's the same with the Russian invasion of Poland that I'd guess most non-academics aren't familiar with, and what went on there which was really just as bad as what the Nazis did with their half.

That’s a good point well made. That said, I’m not sure it’s just a case of the Soviets being our allies, after all they were great enemy of the Cold War, so there was every motivation to make as much of a deal as possible about their atrocities. We did, sort of, but not in a way that every really stuck in the public conscious as much as the atrocities of the Nazis.

I don’t really know why that is. Maybe, when you look at other atrocities from other regimes, the CCP, the Khmer Rouge, the Armenian Genocide, perhaps public indifference and ignorance is the norm? Perhaps the knowledge of the holocaust is unusual, possibly a product of some excellent historical work, some excellent films on the subject, and the Nazis being such a nice villain – pure evil that we decisively beat.

My pet theory is that Germany was the only "proper" (white) civilisation to commit such atrocities. All the others were "lesser" (non-white) civilisations. It's more shocking to us because the Germans were us.

Well I will throw a bit more of a reasonable theory out there...

People did not know (even Germans) just how bad persecution of the Jews, disabled, Jehovah's witnesses, gypsies and so on was. I have seen letters to Churchill about requesting bombing raids over railroads to death camps but largely it was unknown what was really happening to the persecuted. When the camps got discovered it blasted over the news. Imagine hearing that a nation had death camps and it was largely unknown. Added to this we allies actually liberated these people (unknowingly ish) from the nightmare.

Correct me if I am wrong, but famine in Russia, gulags etc seemed like news that was like us hearing about starvation in Africa etc. In Japan reporters were present to witness many Japanese actions in China and so on. As far as I can tell, nothing horrible these nations did outside of a few incidents was discovered in a shocking and horrible way.

I highly doubt it's because we are all internally racist or something.

 feeder wrote:
My pet theory is that Germany was the only "proper" (white) civilisation to commit such atrocities. All the others were "lesser" (non-white) civilisations. It's more shocking to us because the Germans were us.

Russians are pretty universally see as white these days. Historically they’ve been seen as non-European, but that goes back to a time when Germans were seen as racially different to Britons etc, so I don’t think that’s it.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well I will throw a bit more of a reasonable theory out there...

People did not know (even Germans) just how bad persecution of the Jews, disabled, Jehovah's witnesses, gypsies and so on was. I have seen letters to Churchill about requesting bombing raids over railroads to death camps but largely it was unknown what was really happening to the persecuted. When the camps got discovered it blasted over the news. Imagine hearing that a nation had death camps and it was largely unknown. Added to this we allies actually liberated these people (unknowingly ish) from the nightmare.

Correct me if I am wrong, but famine in Russia, gulags etc seemed like news that was like us hearing about starvation in Africa etc. In Japan reporters were present to witness many Japanese actions in China and so on. As far as I can tell, nothing horrible these nations did outside of a few incidents was discovered in a shocking and horrible way.

I highly doubt it's because we are all internally racist or something.

Yeah, I think the comparison to us hearing about starving people in Africa is a good comparison. There is certainly an emotional distance for most of these other atrocities that isn't there with the holocaust. I think the question is why, and I wonder if a line you posted, ‘we allies actually liberated these people’ probably touches on what is starting to make sense as the answer.

The Nazis weren’t just an absolutely evil regime, they were a regime that we fought and eliminated entirely. The story of the Nazis is an inherently great narrative - Nazi Germany spread across Europe, enslaved and killed millions, then an alliance of countries fought back, liberated the people and wiped the Nazi menace from the Earth. That’s a good, clean story, that we fit in to neatly as the heroes.

Then compare that to Soviet Russia - where a brutal regime dominated the lives of a hundred million people, killed millions of them, and we… allied with them for one war, then fought a bunch of proxy wars against them, but mostly just did nothing, and after a while the regime collapsed internally.

In both cases focusing on the atrocities requires you to deal with have deal with some pretty nasty stuff, but the former is far more palatable as a story than the latter. A story about the holocaust might be utterly harrowing, but it will be framed with the knowledge that this regime was defeated, and it's leaders were killed in battle, killed themselves, or faced trial for what they did. Most films and books that deal with this will actually end with the liberation of the camps, at the very least.

Dealing with Stalinism ends with a state funeral attended by millions - there is no relief, it goes from bleak to just plain awful.

Sebster, I think you're misunderstanding the original point I made.

My original point dealt with the consequences of the fall of France, not British policy in the Far East.

I'm arguing that without France's defeat, Japan would not have occupied Indo-China (which allowed them easy access to Malaya, to attack Singapore in the first place)

Also, France's fall encouraged Italy to enter the war with a view to grabbing Britain's African possessions, as the French Navy's role was to guard the Med, whilst the Royal Navy guarded the Atlantic.

And of course, if France hadn't fallen, Germany would not have attacked the Soviet Union.

After reading the military history of Germany's invasion of France in 1940, I'm amazed at how many chances the Allies had to stop the Germans. It's all Ifs, but, maybe, but it was a lot closer than people realise.

 sebster wrote:

Spoiler:

 feeder wrote:
My pet theory is that Germany was the only "proper" (white) civilisation to commit such atrocities. All the others were "lesser" (non-white) civilisations. It's more shocking to us because the Germans were us.

Russians are pretty universally see as white these days. Historically they’ve been seen as non-European, but that goes back to a time when Germans were seen as racially different to Britons etc, so I don’t think that’s it.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well I will throw a bit more of a reasonable theory out there...

People did not know (even Germans) just how bad persecution of the Jews, disabled, Jehovah's witnesses, gypsies and so on was. I have seen letters to Churchill about requesting bombing raids over railroads to death camps but largely it was unknown what was really happening to the persecuted. When the camps got discovered it blasted over the news. Imagine hearing that a nation had death camps and it was largely unknown. Added to this we allies actually liberated these people (unknowingly ish) from the nightmare.

Correct me if I am wrong, but famine in Russia, gulags etc seemed like news that was like us hearing about starvation in Africa etc. In Japan reporters were present to witness many Japanese actions in China and so on. As far as I can tell, nothing horrible these nations did outside of a few incidents was discovered in a shocking and horrible way.

I highly doubt it's because we are all internally racist or something.

Yeah, I think the comparison to us hearing about starving people in Africa is a good comparison. There is certainly an emotional distance for most of these other atrocities that isn't there with the holocaust. I think the question is why, and I wonder if a line you posted, ‘we allies actually liberated these people’ probably touches on what is starting to make sense as the answer.

The Nazis weren’t just an absolutely evil regime, they were a regime that we fought and eliminated entirely. The story of the Nazis is an inherently great narrative - Nazi Germany spread across Europe, enslaved and killed millions, then an alliance of countries fought back, liberated the people and wiped the Nazi menace from the Earth. That’s a good, clean story, that we fit in to neatly as the heroes.

Then compare that to Soviet Russia - where a brutal regime dominated the lives of a hundred million people, killed millions of them, and we… allied with them for one war, then fought a bunch of proxy wars against them, but mostly just did nothing, and after a while the regime collapsed internally.

In both cases focusing on the atrocities requires you to deal with have deal with some pretty nasty stuff, but the former is far more palatable as a story than the latter. A story about the holocaust might be utterly harrowing, but it will be framed with the knowledge that this regime was defeated, and it's leaders were killed in battle, killed themselves, or faced trial for what they did. Most films and books that deal with this will actually end with the liberation of the camps, at the very least.

Dealing with Stalinism ends with a state funeral attended by millions - there is no relief, it goes from bleak to just plain awful.

That's a good set of points, to which I'd add that the Holocaust sticks out in the Western conscience not just because it adds another level of triumph to their victory, but because unlike most genocides on that scale, people did survive and return to society to tell their stories. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Stalin's victims were either killed instantly or sent to Gulags to work until death; none really got out until much, much later, and even after Stalin's death, the Soviet propaganda machine would be careful about what information was out there.

Ultimately, The Holocaust was a tragedy that lived on in memories and in culture, while The Terror was a set of statistics that was already history by the time anyone other than the perpetrators knew about its true extent. It's really a perception that ought to be changed, but I don't think it will be any time soon.

The main reason why the Holocaust is a worse atrocity and crime against humanity compared to Stalin's purges and gulags, is because the Holocaust specifically sent people to die for merely existing in the first place.

Stalin got rid of anyone opposed to the party, but if they were loyal to the party (which is a choice that they could make), they'd most likely survive. Or at least, let me put it this way - the overwhelming majority of the people who died in Stalin's camps weren't loyal to the party. And then you have of course, all those who died of starvation. But again, these people weren't deliberately killed by Stalin's regime - they were the result of a very crude policy of redistribution.

The overwhelming majority of people who died in Hitler's camps however, had merely made the mistake of existing within the confines of the Reich and its territories. They were a racial scapegoat whose elimination was the goal and foundation of the entire Nazi movement.

So yes, from an ideological standpoint the Holocaust is always worse than anything Stalin committed.

 Sir Arun wrote:
The main reason why the Holocaust is a worse atrocity and crime against humanity compared to Stalin's purges and gulags, is because the Holocaust specifically sent people to die for merely existing in the first place.

Stalin got rid of anyone opposed to the party, but if they were loyal to the party (which is a choice that they could make), they'd most likely survive. Or at least, let me put it this way - the overwhelming majority of the people who died in Stalin's camps weren't loyal to the party. And then you have of course, all those who died of starvation. But again, these people weren't deliberately killed by Stalin's regime - they were the result of a very crude policy of redistribution.

The overwhelming majority of people who died in Hitler's camps however, had merely made the mistake of existing within the confines of the Reich and its territories. They were a racial scapegoat whose elimination was the goal and foundation of the entire Nazi movement.

So yes, from an ideological standpoint the Holocaust is always worse than anything Stalin committed.

Not true exactly. Stalin had his own pogroms against Jews and other groups purely for existing.