Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Poland 1939 Was Hitler Right

Hitler made mistakes later. One of the most serious was invasion into the Soviet union.

It was a mistake to do so without nuetralising the UK

It could be seen as a mistake to do so in Jun 41 before the losses of the BofB are made good
You can argue the vBoB was from a German perspecteve a pointless waste of combat aircraft and crews

You can argue the whole Desert war was an unnecassery diversion of resources (especially trucks)


But you cannot call the invasion of the Soviet Union a mistake* since that was the whole point - If Hitler doesnt do that he isnt Hitler


*Bad Idea - poorly executed and unwise perhaps but not a mistake
 
It was a mistake to do so without nuetralising the UK

It could be seen as a mistake to do so in Jun 41 before the losses of the BofB are made good
You can argue the vBoB was from a German perspecteve a pointless waste of combat aircraft and crews

You can argue the whole Desert war was an unnecassery diversion of resources (especially trucks)


But you cannot call the invasion of the Soviet Union a mistake* since that was the whole point - If Hitler doesnt do that he isnt Hitler


*Bad Idea - poorly executed and unwise perhaps but not a mistake
I believe that previously on this thread I quoted Hitler as saying in Mein Kampf that Britain needed to be either brought on side or persuaded to stand aside so that Germany could access the overseas resources required to prosecute a war in eastern Europe.

So, the Battle of Britain wasn't pointless, it was seen as a necessary precursor to the main objective, which was the conquest of the Soviet Union. Germany however failed at knocking Britain out of the war.

As I've said previously, there were only two ways in which Germany could achieve their goal of the conquest of the Soviet Union. One was to defeat the Soviets quickly before Germany's stockpiles of food, raw materials, and oil ran out. The other was to either defeat Britain or otherwise ensure their neutrality so that Germany could access world markets for the resources to enable a protracted war with the Soviets. Germany couldn't do either, and so lost the war.
 
Of course the invasion of the Soviet Union and seizing their land, food, oil, iron, and coal for Germany was the whole point of starting the war in the first place and was the central pillar of Hitler's plans for the future of Germany.
We discussed this point earlier and I wrote that Hitler was not sufficiently prepared to the war with the Soviet union in 1941.
In 1940, having in fact the whole Europe at his hand Hitler had enough land, food, iron (from Sweden) and coal. Romania provided Germany with oil - enough for military operations. Direct frontal attack of the Soviet union was apparent miscalculation.
I wrote that after Greece Hitler could direct his hordes toward Turkey - either capture it or stage military coup. Turkey with its developed net of rail ways and French Syria would be a base, to capture the whole ME and Hitler was able to do it soon. The ME means oil, land, food, other resources and Iran as a devoted ally. With fall of Alexandria and Malta, the whole Mediterranean region would be under control of Hitler.
In 1942 Hitler would be in much better position to reach his goal - invasion in the Soviet union. The invasion could be staged from different directions including Caucasian border. Capture of Baku oilfields would be a serious blow for the Soviet union.
Let's compare Hitler's strategy with Stalin's one. In 1941, despite catastrophic situation on the front, Moscow along with London swiftly occupied Iran. Soviet forces were formidable - 3 armies with 1000 tanks. These forces were badly needed on the German front but strategically control over Iran was too important to postpone this operation.
While his the first step (the invasion in Poland) was not a mistake, Hitler lost the war because of strategical miscalculations.
 
It was a mistake to do so without nuetralising the UK

It could be seen as a mistake to do so in Jun 41 before the losses of the BofB are made good
You can argue the vBoB was from a German perspecteve a pointless waste of combat aircraft and crews

You can argue the whole Desert war was an unnecassery diversion of resources (especially trucks)


But you cannot call the invasion of the Soviet Union a mistake* since that was the whole point - If Hitler doesnt do that he isnt Hitler


*Bad Idea - poorly executed and unwise perhaps but not a mistake
From my point of view BofB was also Hitler's big mistake, waste of resources badly needed in the future.
Read my previous comment on this thread. In this scenario, Hitler would have excellent opportunities to instigate anti-British riots in India having Iran as a base for ground invasion.
 
Last edited:
We discussed this point earlier and I wrote that Hitler was not sufficiently prepared to the war with the Soviet union in 1941.
In 1940, having in fact the whole Europe at his hand Hitler had enough land, food, iron (from Sweden) and coal. Romania provided Germany with oil - enough for military operations. Direct frontal attack of the Soviet union was apparent miscalculation.
I wrote that after Greece Hitler could direct his hordes toward Turkey - either capture it or stage military coup. Turkey with its developed net of rail ways and French Syria would be a base, to capture the whole ME and Hitler was able to do it soon. The ME means oil, land, food, other resources and Iran as a devoted ally. With fall of Alexandria and Malta, the whole Mediterranean region would be under control of Hitler.
In 1942 Hitler would be in much better position to reach his goal - invasion in the Soviet union. The invasion could be staged from different directions including Caucasian border. Capture of Baku oilfields would be a serious blow for the Soviet union.
Let's compare Hitler's strategy with Stalin's one. In 1941, despite catastrophic situation on the front, Moscow along with London swiftly occupied Iran. Soviet forces were formidable - 3 armies with 1000 tanks. These forces were badly needed on the German front but strategically control over Iran was too important to postpone this operation.
While his the first step (the invasion in Poland) was not a mistake, Hitler lost the war because of strategical miscalculations.
Romania could not supply enough oil and numerous critical metals and alloys became increasingly scarce as the war went on. As soon as world markets were closed to Germany they had a limited window of time in which to win the war.

And we've had this discussion before. If Hitler had sent his army to the Middle East Stalin would have sent his own army to Berlin. Hitler would have then shot himself in his bunker in 1942 and saved everyone else a lot of trouble.
 
We discussed this point earlier and I wrote that Hitler was not sufficiently prepared to the war with the Soviet union in 1941.
Exactly so, but it was to all intents a toss up as to who attacked whom first. The Soviets weren’t exactly innocent of border incidents. Funnily enough we have enough evidence of Soviet Russian mentality today. Why won’t you accept the fact that Hitler was duped into attacking? I mean it’s fair enough.
 
Romania could not supply enough oil and numerous critical metals and alloys became increasingly scarce as the war went on. As soon as world markets were closed to Germany they had a limited window of time in which to win the war.

And we've had this discussion before. If Hitler had sent his army to the Middle East Stalin would have sent his own army to Berlin. Hitler would have then shot himself in his bunker in 1942 and saved everyone else a lot of trouble.

But Hitler (in my scenario) would be able to receive oil and other goods from ... the Soviet union. We understand that Hitler would not inform Stalin about exact date of the invasion and about any plans for such an invasion. I suppose that in the case with Turkey Hitler could propose Stalin (in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact style) to take big parts of Turkey - historically Georgian and Armenian lands including mount Ararat. Stalin, being ethnically Georgian himself would accept such an interesting offer.
As for imaginary attack of Germany by the Soviet union, then it looks as implausible. Germany was much stronger than Finland. From formal point of view the Red army won in 1940 but it was Pyrrhic victory. So Stalin understood that war with Germany would be too risky to unleash it. Stalin followed communist strategy - to watch epic battle between 'capitalist dogs' and wait for 'world revolution'.
Hitler in my scenario could instigate anti-British revolution in India. Stalin, no doubt would contribute to it, would help local pro-communist activists.
Hitler could postpone invasion in the Soviet union for years and having at hand the whole European industry would be able to expand German navy to compete with British one. Hitler could not bomb the UK at all but could propose repeatedly a honourable peace. The proposition could be accepted and Hitler would be in an excellent position to invade the Soviet union in this case voided such a potential ally as the UK.
Anyway, I'm absolutely sure that Hitler was not properly prepared to invade the Soviet union in 1941.
 

4(T)

LE
From my point of view BofB was also Hitler's big mistake, waste of resources badly needed in the future.
Read my previous comment on this thread. In this scenario, Hitler would have excellent opportunities to instigate anti-British riots in India having Iran as a base for ground invasion.


Thats a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the British Empire, common to totalitarian countries and now enshrined in modern alternative anti-colonial histories.

The reality is that in 1940 no British colony, territory or LoN mandate had any significant secessionist movement or civil discontent - even in India. The majority of possessions didn't even have any form of authority enforcement beyond a small civil police force.

India itself had a tiny cadre of activists (who took power after independence) but no genuine large civil movement. The civil administration and Indian Army were loyal, with the latter enjoying practically limitless numbers of volunteer applicants. Most of the minority groups (ie non Muslim or Hindu) were even strongly pro-British as they could foresee what the alternative would bring.

IIRC Hitler even mused that the British Empire and Commonwealth was supremely stable - thats why he entertained fantasies about allying with it in a new world order. His agents proved the point by failing to achieve anything even in Egypt or the nominally friendly former Ottoman territories.
 
Last edited:

4(T)

LE
Anyway, I'm absolutely sure that Hitler was not properly prepared to invade the Soviet union in 1941.


History shows that he came within a couple of days or so of winning, though.

If Stalin had boarded that train to Kyubishev/Samara on the night of 16th October, then it seems inevitable that the regime would have collapsed, and military resistance with it.

Research in the 1990s, before the archives were closed again, started to turn up evidence of widespread disorder and panic in Moscow at this time. Only a sanitized history now remains, but collateral evidence suggests that the Soviet regime survived by the tiniest of margins.
 
Thats a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the British Empire, common to totalitarian countries and now enshrined in modern alternative anti-colonial histories.

I believe that I know enough about pre-WW2 history of India to make at least obvious conclusions. Independence of India happened in 1947 was not a gift from London. It was won in multi-decades struggle.
 
Last edited:
Looks like our rezidyent in Moscow is desperately trying to avoid and divert from the fact of Moscow’s complicity in starting WW2 with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Hitler was wrong in invading Poland when he did and so was Stalin.

In fact they were both completely wrong in all their monstrous policies. Hitler led Germany down a self-destructive rabbit hole and Stalin almost did and still destroyed the fabric of society in the lands controlled by Moscow retarding their development tremendously.
 
History shows that he came within a couple of days or so of winning, though.

If Stalin had boarded that train to Kyubishev/Samara on the night of 16th October, then it seems inevitable that the regime would have collapsed, and military resistance with it.

Research in the 1990s, before the archives were closed again, started to turn up evidence of widespread disorder and panic in Moscow at this time. Only a sanitized history now remains, but collateral evidence suggests that the Soviet regime survived by the tiniest of margins.

Who knows what would happen? But even the fall of Moscow would not mean the end of the war. Even death of Stalin would not be as critical as some suggest. Stalin was a talented politician and statesman. He making important decisions used to hear professionals and there was a lot of outstanding generals in the Red army.
 
Looks like our rezidyent in Moscow is desperately trying to avoid and divert from the fact of Moscow’s complicity in starting WW2 with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Hitler was wrong in invading Poland when he did and so was Stalin.

Well, propose the better way for Hitler to unleash WW2. Maybe he had to attack France first?
In fact Hitler had only 2 alternatives in 1939 - to invade Poland or France. The first option was apparently more realistic.
 
Well, propose the better way for Hitler to unleash WW2. Maybe he had to attack France first?
In fact Hitler had only 2 alternatives in 1939 - to invade Poland or France. The first option was apparently more realistic.
The whole point is Germany did not need to attack any country. No point in starting WW2. The facts are that both Berlin and Moscow were bent on European wars of aggression and conquest by ideological choice.

Hitler wanted Germany to become the apex world power. Stalin wanted Soviet Russia to become the apex world power. Both thought they could outsmart the other to achieve this aim.

Stalin facilitated Hitler to start WW2 because he believed Germany and France/UK would fight themselves to a standstill on the Western Front "a la WW1" and he could then waltz in over the shattered pieces and establish Muscovite rule over the whole of Europe.

Hitler believed he could overwhem France, intimidate and reach a negotiated settlement with the UK and then flatten Soviet Russia and extend German hegemony over Eurasia.

Both had megalomaniac aims for themselves and the countries they ruled. Berlin was cured of this plague in WW2. However Moscow is still affected by it.
 
Last edited:
And it bloody well hurt !!!
Of course it did, it just so happened that war was started over Versailles, not Poland. Poland was incidental to it. Having achieved the aim of defeating Germany, the rest really didn’t matter.
But Hitler (in my scenario) would be able to receive oil and other goods from ... the Soviet union. We understand that Hitler would not inform Stalin about exact date of the invasion and about any plans for such an invasion. I suppose that in the case with Turkey Hitler could propose Stalin (in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact style) to take big parts of Turkey
WTF why on earth would Hitler want Turkey. The whole point of a non aggression pact is not interfering with what the other party does. Turkey was very much stalins baby. The only way Turkey comes into the equation was if Germany displaced us and the French in Iraq post 1943. In that event of course he wouldn’t be talking to Stalin. As for India it may have escaped your notice but there was a thing called the Indian National Army which was in cahoots with the Japanese. As and when India got it’s independence was really down to the outcome of the war.
 

Latest Threads

Top