CALM Discussion of the Eastern Front.

[General Mayhem]

I had read recently that Hitler's "pretext" for attacking Soviet Union was to "knock out" CHurchill's main hope for continued resistance. I think this was somewhat disingenuous (sic). I think it was a sales pitch to his Generals, though from what I've read they didn't need much selling. Wasn't it afterall always a part of his "grand plan" as outlined in "Mein Kamph"? The one British Biographer makes a pretty convincing argument that Hitler was a gambler by nature (apart from being a gangster) and that his character and the dynamics of the Nazi ideology demanded a constant military and political agressiveness. It seemed to me to be pretty good arguments. But then I don't subscribe to the Tolstoyan (sic) view of historical forces.

[General Mayhem]

Not going to even attempt to argue with such a well reasoned argument. Worth reading a few times. Especially like the metaphor about the coyote in the cornfield.
Never been in combat so I can't address the issue of motivation from personal experience. Only quote those who have been through the fire. I imagine there are as many motivations for actions in combat as their are combatants, but I think some of Jimbotosome's points are good. I can't support the idea that Soviet soldiers weren't courageous bcause their government was terrible as that rule would have to apply to Germany as well, since the boche often fought heroically for a horrible regime.
The thing that never fails to awe me when I read accounts is of men who knowingly sacrifice there lives in a "suicide mission." Different war but I think of the Union soldier's diary found on his body at Cold Harbor.
"August 6th, Cold Harbor. I am Killed." That's a tough one. Or the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades. Jimbotosome is correct, that is a whole different motivation and state of conciousness than going forward because you have a gun to your head from behind. However, that doesn't mean I depreate the courage of Soviet troops either. Not that I think Jimbosome is either. Going into battle with an enemy waiting to kill you in front and a comrade behind waiting to do the same thing also requires a "sang froid" I'm in no position to judge.

[General Mayhem]

You may know something about this that I don't. I wasn't aware that the S.S. recruited there concentration camp guard at a point of a gun. At least I've never read that this was the case. I'm speaking here of course about the S.S not inmates who were forced into this position. Phillip K. Dick made this point about his inspiration for the novel "Do androids dream of electronic sheep." He read a quote by an S.S officer stationed in the Warsaw ghetto. "This in't a bad duty at all. But I must rmark that the cries and screams of the dying jews sometimes disrupts my sleep." If I'm looking to fill heaven I'll look amongst the people who dedicate there lives at ground level to alleviating human misery, if i want to run a concentration camp then I'll look for those people who readily take advantage of their fellows in small ways, because that lack of empathy I can subvert into taking advantage of their fellows in big ways.

[4th wilts]

i reckon the germans could have if not won,but given themselves perhaps time to consolidate ground gained by bouncing the volga at stalingrad,when i believe they could have.they would then be in control of all the resources of the southern ussr,oil and all.yours,4th wilts.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Gotthard Heinrici

Suvorov states that Stalin was about to Attack Germany and yet his biggest force, the Southwestern Front, which was stationed in Ukraine was deployed moreso with a view to attacking Rumania rather than an attack into Germany. Why concentrate your biggest forces away from your only direct point of attack against your enemy??? Suvorov indeed concedes that an operation against Rumania was on the cards but to be honest it seems unlikely that if the Red Army was about to take on the best army in Europe, it would concentrate its biggest formation against the lowly Rumanians, even if the objective was the Ploesti oilfields.

GH, I believe the Soviet attack was planned for late '41 or spring of '42, the forces massed SW of Kiev were still not ready to attack in June '41. It would also make sense to organize your forces away from the frontier so the enemy does not suspect an attack

[General Mayhem]

Originally Posted by freebird

GH, I believe the Soviet attack was planned for late '41 or spring of '42, the forces massed SW of Kiev were still not ready to attack in June '41. It would also make sense to organize your forces away from the frontier so the enemy does not suspect an attack

FB, what you write makes sense, and it tallys with stated documents from USSR, but then why was Stalin building advanced airfields in 40 when the Germans could and did see them on overflights? Stalin expected to go to war with Hitler in 42, but Pleshakov is saying that Stalin was preparing to attack much earlier. Do you think that this was just a case of not being prepared for all contigencies or that it was taking longer than expected to develop the front. There were Soviet Generals who later wrote about this, making your point that regardless of an offensive or defensive posture building up forces on the frontier was a mistake. Not just from the point of secrecy, but allowing your forces a buffer zone in case of invasion to allow for maneuver and assessing the major points of attack.

[General Mayhem]

Originally Posted by Slipdigit

I don't guess the presence of men with guns makes any difference between then and now as to whether someone has a choice or were compelled on pain of death?

Please see reply above as I agree men with guns do make a difference, but I wasn't speaking of the unwilling participants.

[General Mayhem]

Hey,
No one has brought up "Citadel" , although "kursk" was brought up. I know that Kursk was the objective but wasn't there more to Citadel then kursk? Sorry about spelling

[freebird]

Originally Posted by General Mayhem

FB, what you write makes sense, and it tallys with stated documents from USSR, but then why was Stalin building advanced airfields in 40 when the Germans could and did see them on overflights? Stalin expected to go to war with Hitler in 42, but Pleshakov is saying that Stalin was preparing to attack much earlier. Do you think that this was just a case of not being prepared for all contigencies or that it was taking longer than expected to develop the front. There were Soviet Generals who later wrote about this, making your point that regardless of an offensive or defensive posture building up forces on the frontier was a mistake. Not just from the point of secrecy, but allowing your forces a buffer zone in case of invasion to allow for maneuver and assessing the major points of attack.

Also remember that AT THE TIME, it seemed like a huge powerful force {to Stalin} it was only later that everyone realized that these huge Russian armies with 1,000's of tanks were not that powerful after all, and the Germans cut them to bits

[4th wilts]

yes,gm,i believe citadel was an op which would destroy the soviets in the kursk salient,and then continue north to take moscow from behind.yours,lee.