76 years ago today, Nazi Germany invades the USSR

Khayembii Communique said:

So, condemn the Soviets for imperial expansionism, and then argue that the Soviets should be taken out, but that that's not somehow expansionist?

Click to expand...

Technically it wouldn't be since nobody was advocating annexing Russia.

Winston said:

It is not to be forgotten how many Russians died on the Eastern front. Some from direct combat, others from bombings, still more from starvation.

Click to expand...

The unmitigated slaughter on both sides....

Khayembii Communique said:

So, condemn the Soviets for imperial expansionism, and then argue that the Soviets should be taken out, but that that's not somehow expansionist?

Click to expand...

Well, I was not proposing annexation and colonial rule. But it might have saved us 50 years of Cold War and many hot ones and tens of millions of lives, if it had been done right. That latter would have been the crux. The UU would have had to be much more powerful and therefore endowed with much more legitimacy

Couldn't have happened to two nicer countries back then.

After Stalin brought on the Holodomor in the Ukraine, he was bound to be rewarded sooner or later in life.

Tigerace117 said:

Technically it wouldn't be since nobody was advocating annexing Russia.

Click to expand...

Expansionism and imperialism aren't just based on expanding borders, they're based on power. Deposing a foreign leader to install one more compliant to your aims is both.

Khayembii Communique said:

Expansionism and imperialism aren't just based on expanding borders, they're based on power. Deposing a foreign leader to install one more compliant to your aims is both.

Click to expand...

Deposing a brutal tyrant to killed millions of his own people wouldn't be either imperialistic or expansionist, especially when that ledger made a habit of attacking his smaller, weaker neighbors.

Jredbaron96 said:

76 years ago today, on June 22nd, 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Union of Soviet Republics, bringing the USSR into WWII on the unexpected side of the allies. Nearly 4 million German and Axis Allies (Hungarian, Finns, Slovaks, Romanians and Italians) commenced Operation Barbarossa. Within months, thanks largely to the poor state of the Red Army, the Ostheer (East Army) had inflicted nearly 5 million Soviet casualties, either killed, captured or wounded. To the Nazis the invasion of the USSR wasn't just another conflict, it was a "Vernichtungskrieg", a war of annihilation. To the Nazis, the purpose of the war was to rid the world of the "Jewish-Bolshevik" collaboration that had been 'poisining' the world, and to finally subdue the "Asiatic hordes" that had threatened Europe for so long. Under these principles the Nazis would commit horrible crimes in the Eastern front, slaughtering nearly 20 million Slavs, gypsies, Jews, and other groups they considered sub humans.

It's a shame that the Red Army served Joseph Stalin, a man as evil and brutal as Hitler himself, but in the end it was the sacrifice of millions of Soviet men and women that enabled the destruction of over a hundred German divisions and 70% of the material losses of the Wehrmacht. Between the invasion of the USSR and the declaration of war on the United States, Hitler doomed Nazi Germany to defeat, either through atomic bombing or through hordes of Red Army divisions and mechanized forces.

Click to expand...

What is bad is hitler never studies history, russia is one of the hardest coutries to invade in the worlds history. Napolean made the same mistake, and the russians kept retreating to siberia until the winter, knowing napoleans army could not survive the harsh siberian winter, they then chased the soldiers after their retreat and burned down their own bridges forcing soldiers to either fight an army they are fleeing from or freeze to death in the rivers of russia.

Napolean escaped but his own army was so weakened by it, they lost supplies and men and worst off morale when napolean left his own soldiers as scape goats so he could flee safely.

beerftw said:

What is bad is hitler never studies history, russia is one of the hardest coutries to invade in the worlds history. Napolean made the same mistake, and the russians kept retreating to siberia until the winter, knowing napoleans army could not survive the harsh siberian winter, they then chased the soldiers after their retreat and burned down their own bridges forcing soldiers to either fight an army they are fleeing from or freeze to death in the rivers of russia.

Napolean escaped but his own army was so weakened by it, they lost supplies and men and worst off morale when napolean left his own soldiers as scape goats so he could flee safely.

Click to expand...

Ya know it's actually kind of funny, we in the West consider Russia one of if not the hardest country to invade, due to the sheer size and extreme temperatures, along with the mud and such. But the Russians themselves actually think the opposite; that defending Russia is actually the really hard part.

It makes sense when you see their reasoning actually makes sense when you think about. They point out that between the Russian border and the Ural mountains (which contain the bulk of Russian industry and population), is largely steppe-land. It's vast and industrialized, which make it a major logistical feat to cover it, but there's a downside for the defender: it's empty! There's no major geographical features to form a defense line around. The rivers are too shallow or thin to defend, or they wind and bend too much to defend in a continuous line, there are no major mountains or forests to use for a strategic defensive echelon. The only shield they can make is to mass troops and equipment since they can't use geography and terrain, at least on the strategic scale. They also point out a lot of Russian conscripts have historically come from Non-Russian areas; like Ukraine, the Caucuses, and Central Asia, and so a lot of recruits aren't used to the cold you experience in northern Russia.

On top of all that they point out while they have typically won in the end, usually invasion of Russia come at a high cost for the Russians. It took burning down their own capital to defeat Napoleon and millions of dead citizens and soldiers to beat Hitler. I of course still wouldn't want to invade Russia, but I find that interesting how they view it versus how the west does.

joG said:

Used the first bombs on Leningrad and Moscow? The Japanese would have been impressed too.

Click to expand...

And how exactly would we have done that?

Drop 2 bombs on 2 cities at the edge of their range? Even assuming they could make it there (over 1,200 miles of hostile territory) without being shot down first. Our only "atomic capable" bomber was the B-29, an aircraft that the Soviets would have had no problem shooting down.

Even the Germans and Japanese were shooting them down regularly, and they had a fraction of the capabilities of the Soviets in the second half of 1945.

And no, the Japanese would not have been impressed. They barely cared even after we dropped 2 on their own country.

Tigerace117 said:

Deposing a brutal tyrant to killed millions of his own people wouldn't be either imperialistic or expansionist, especially when that ledger made a habit of attacking his smaller, weaker neighbors.

Click to expand...

And what would then happen? Flowers and puppydogs?

No, odds are the Soviet state would have fragmented into a dozen or more warring and competing "pseudo-republics", each competing with it's neighbors to become dominant. That is the example of Yugoslavia.

Or it might have reconsolidated again with a much more aggressive and expansionist philosophy. Moving the Capitalists from being a "class enemy" to becoming the "ultimate evil", to be exterminated at all costs wherever found.

Remember, this is a national culture that took paranoia to an extreme, even prior to becoming Communist. That made them even more so. If you think they then would have rolled over and become Good Republican Nations, you are deluding yourself. After all, we have multiple examples of Communist groups fighting for decades, even after all hope has been lost, trying to bring about their "Perfect Government".

Even today, with the last century of Communism being proven to be a lie (Kim III and Castro II) prove that it is just as the philosophers say. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Except each boss that follows is more brutal than the last.

Oozlefinch said:

And what would then happen? Flowers and puppydogs?

No, odds are the Soviet state would have fragmented into a dozen or more warring and competing "pseudo-republics", each competing with it's neighbors to become dominant. That is the example of Yugoslavia.

Or it might have reconsolidated again with a much more aggressive and expansionist philosophy. Moving the Capitalists from being a "class enemy" to becoming the "ultimate evil", to be exterminated at all costs wherever found.

Remember, this is a national culture that took paranoia to an extreme, even prior to becoming Communist. That made them even more so. If you think they then would have rolled over and become Good Republican Nations, you are deluding yourself. After all, we have multiple examples of Communist groups fighting for decades, even after all hope has been lost, trying to bring about their "Perfect Government".

Even today, with the last century of Communism being proven to be a lie (Kim III and Castro II) prove that it is just as the philosophers say. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Except each boss that follows is more brutal than the last.

Click to expand...

Not really. There would still be some conflict between neighbors--- for example, Azerbaijan and Armenia--- but the idea that it would have descended into Yugoslavia-level genocide- especially when it didn't historically--- is simply incorrect.

And you have to remember that the USSR was composed of states which really didnt want to be a part of the USSR and had no reason to join the Russians on their "capitalist exterminatation crusade."

And North Korea is an international pariah which can't even feed its own people. Cuba has stagnated.

Oozlefinch said:

And how exactly would we have done that?

Drop 2 bombs on 2 cities at the edge of their range? Even assuming they could make it there (over 1,200 miles of hostile territory) without being shot down first. Our only "atomic capable" bomber was the B-29, an aircraft that the Soviets would have had no problem shooting down.

Even the Germans and Japanese were shooting them down regularly, and they had a fraction of the capabilities of the Soviets in the second half of 1945.

And no, the Japanese would not have been impressed. They barely cared even after we dropped 2 on their own country.

Click to expand...

All good things are hard to achieve.

Oozlefinch said:

And how exactly would we have done that?

Drop 2 bombs on 2 cities at the edge of their range? Even assuming they could make it there (over 1,200 miles of hostile territory) without being shot down first. Our only "atomic capable" bomber was the B-29, an aircraft that the Soviets would have had no problem shooting down.

Even the Germans and Japanese were shooting them down regularly, and they had a fraction of the capabilities of the Soviets in the second half of 1945.

And no, the Japanese would not have been impressed. They barely cared even after we dropped 2 on their own country.

Click to expand...

Sorry to barge in, I was surfing thru posts yesterday and found an issue with your above post. According to my history lessons, few B-29 Superfortresses operated in the ETO making them hard for the Germans to bring down. The B-29 was primarily used as a long range bomber that could cover the long distance found in the Pacific Theater. B-29s were pressed into service a little early and many early missions were lost due to mechanical failure. There is also some debate as to Japan's capability to get their fighters to altitude and then engage the bombers. Compared to ETO aircrew losses, PTO losses were on a whole less. (The air war in the ETO started earlier.) The other reason B-29 weren't widely used in the ETO was the fact that the available aircraft, B-17, B-24, etc, were able to bring large payloads over the distance needed in AO. Sorry not to include any thoughts on "Operation Barbarossa" as in the thread title.

Rexedgar said:

Sorry to barge in, I was surfing thru posts yesterday and found an issue with your above post. According to my history lessons, few B-29 Superfortresses operated in the ETO making them hard for the Germans to bring down. The B-29 was primarily used as a long range bomber that could cover the long distance found in the Pacific Theater.

Click to expand...

The B-29 was used almost exclusively in the PTO. And yes, losses were light because of that when compared to the ETO, but that does not mean there were not any.

Out of 315 B-29 missions in the Pacific in WWII, 279 were lost to enemy action, a loss rate of around .9%. Now this is much lower than in the ETO, where the loss rate was closer to 3%. But you also have to consider the differences in terrain.

In Europe, most of the flights were over land. Where the chance of detection is much higher, and significantly more enemy airfields and gun emplacements were to be found. In the PTO, there was rarely any resistance met until close to the target.

But expand the terrain, and you will have significantly higher casualties. Do not think that the B-29 was any safer of an aircraft for crews to fly, or that it was any more invulnerable. It simply flew most of it's missions over open water. Flying over enemy occupied territory would have increased the chances of failure significantly. Remember, the USSR was not a beaten enemy in June 1945.

And what would be the odds of a small number of aircraft making it all the way to the target, as compared to say Japan where they routinely ignored such small numbers (by that stage a recon flight was not worth the effort of attacking, they saved their resources for bomber raids). This would not have been the case in attacking the USSR (unless we were intending an unannounced attack).

Tigerace117 said:

Not really. There would still be some conflict between neighbors--- for example, Azerbaijan and Armenia--- but the idea that it would have descended into Yugoslavia-level genocide- especially when it didn't historically--- is simply incorrect.

And you have to remember that the USSR was composed of states which really didnt want to be a part of the USSR and had no reason to join the Russians on their "capitalist exterminatation crusade."

Click to expand...

I never said it would descend into the kind of genocide we saw from the fall of Yugoslavia. But like that nation, it would have mostly broken up into it's former components. However, the bloodshed would likely have been lower since the level of animosity in most of the USSR was not the same as was seen in Marshal Tito's nation.

But you are also forgetting that we are talking 25 years after the Revolution. An entire generation had been raised under the banner of the USSR, and a great many were true believers. And without a provocation, that would have set fires burning in those who did not care much prior to that.

Heck, look at the US in WWII. Most did not care about the atrocities in China and other parts of the Pacific prior to 7 December. Most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European War, and most did not care what happened to the Yellow Men half a world away. But attack them, and it became deeply personal.

So yes, they would have formed a "crusade" to go after us, for attacking them unprovoked. And it would have deepened their paranoia even more.

Oozlefinch said:

The B-29 was used almost exclusively in the PTO. And yes, losses were light because of that when compared to the ETO, but that does not mean there were not any.

Out of 315 B-29 missions in the Pacific in WWII, 279 were lost to enemy action, a loss rate of around .9%. Now this is much lower than in the ETO, where the loss rate was closer to 3%. But you also have to consider the differences in terrain.

In Europe, most of the flights were over land. Where the chance of detection is much higher, and significantly more enemy airfields and gun emplacements were to be found. In the PTO, there was rarely any resistance met until close to the target.

But expand the terrain, and you will have significantly higher casualties. Do not think that the B-29 was any safer of an aircraft for crews to fly, or that it was any more invulnerable. It simply flew most of it's missions over open water. Flying over enemy occupied territory would have increased the chances of failure significantly. Remember, the USSR was not a beaten enemy in June 1945.

And what would be the odds of a small number of aircraft making it all the way to the target, as compared to say Japan where they routinely ignored such small numbers (by that stage a recon flight was not worth the effort of attacking, they saved their resources for bomber raids). This would not have been the case in attacking the USSR (unless we were intending an unannounced attack).

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, the item that caught my eye was reference to the B-29 in the ETO. I had never heard of that aircraft being used in the ETO. (I am not the last word on aviation history) I had to research the premise and did find what one person said was the 'only B-29' in the ETO. Cheers!

Photo of Only B-29 Flying Over ETO 1944 - MILITARY AIRCRAFT & AVIATION - U.S. Militaria Forum

Rexedgar said:

Thanks for the reply, the item that caught my eye was reference to the B-29 in the ETO. I had never heard of that aircraft being used in the ETO. (I am not the last word on aviation history) I had to research the premise and did find what one person said was the 'only B-29' in the ETO. Cheers!

Photo of Only B-29 Flying Over ETO 1944 - MILITARY AIRCRAFT & AVIATION - U.S. Militaria Forum

Click to expand...

I say "almost exclusively" because I also have heard incidental reports of the B-29 in Europe, but there were no B-29 equipped bomber groups in that theater. And there is little information available for the location of F-13 aircraft (Recon versions, later renamed the FB-29, then to the RB-29). It would not surprise me if a limited number of the F-13s were sent to Europe.