A perspective on Hitler's motivations

[heydaralon]

And as for "scouting", this is 1941, what do you think they had, sattelite reconnaissance?

You couldn't see shit in those days, beyond a few miles in front of you, you could easily mass a huge force without being detected, that was the whole war, one massive surprise attack after the next.

It seems like the Romans sent out cavalry ahead of the army all the time. The Soviets had the best spy network in the world at this time, they had planes too. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. Well, supposedly Richard Sorge did tell Stalin about Barbarossa but his warning went unheeded so idk.

[heydaralon]

Fair enough, never claimed to be a military expert. Here is a question I have for you though:
In one of Anthony Beevor's books the dude says that the soviet forces did not have much food, fuel, or logistics set up. For an invasion like that to work, there would need to be huge supply lines because an army of that size would run out of all of those quickly. If Stalin was planning an invasion, why didn't he have any of those key pieces in place? How far was he planning on getting without oil or food? Apparently a lot of Stalin's superior tank numbers was a mirage too, because many of them were inoperable come Barbarossa. They did not seem to be ready at all.

Yes, well, Suvorov goes over it, point by point, to show that Beevor doesn't know what he's talking about, and in fact the Soviets were massed, and ready to attack, and fully stocked, and had the better kit as well, and how the Germans actually took advantage of all that, after they encircled the Soviets and then plundered all their kit and stores to be repurposed to Barbarossa.

This may not be a question you can answer, but if there is academic politics at play in suppressing the true Soviet 1941 intentions, who benefits? The soviet union has been defeated, and before that we hated the shit out of them for half a century. This sort of revisionism would be wildly popular in America. What motive in academia would they have for suppressing the truth?

[Smitty-48]

And as for "scouting", this is 1941, what do you think they had, sattelite reconnaissance?

You couldn't see shit in those days, beyond a few miles in front of you, you could easily mass a huge force without being detected, that was the whole war, one massive surprise attack after the next.

It seems like the Romans sent out cavalry ahead of the army all the time. The Soviets had the best spy network in the world at this time, they had planes too. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. Well, supposedly Richard Sorge did tell Stalin about Barbarossa but his warning went unheeded so idk.

The Soviets have only ever had the best spy network in terms of exploiting traitors, they've never had the best spy network in terms of operational reconnaissance, and as I've already told you, in 1941, you could easily hide an army, because there was no effective overhead assets, for example, the Anglo-American Operation Market Garden, they sent the Airborne forces into Holland, after intel and recce had given the all clear, and even with Ultra having cracked Enigma, then ran right into the Panzers which they had determined were not there.

The Second World War is one massive surprise attack sprung after the next, from the Ardennes and Pearl Harbor, to Stalingrad and the Battle of the Bulge. Why? No overhead assets, they didn't have satelites, they couldn't see anything in front of them.

How does Rommel know when the Anglo-French force has moved north into Belgium, and so where and when he should cut south to encircle them? He couldn't see what they were doing, somebody got on the phone and told the Germans, and that's the only way Rommel knew.

The 7th Panzer Division spearhead, was not directed by reconnaissance, it was directed by a traitor in the British ranks.

[Smitty-48]

You know, the Soviet tanks in 1941, were literally custom designed to invade Germany, the main Soviet tank before the T-34, was the BT-7M, and it was a two-in-one tank, could use tracks to cross the terrain until it got to the German autobahns, then it could shed its tracks and use the extra large rubber lined drive wheels with front axle steering, to speed along all the way to Berlin.

[heydaralon]

You know, the Soviet tanks in 1941, were literally custom designed to invade Germany, the main Soviet tank before the T-34, was the BT-7M, and it was a two-in-one tank, could use tracks to cross the terrain until it got to the German autobahns, then it could shed its tracks and use the extra large rubber lined drive wheels with front axle steering, to speed along all the way to Berlin.

Why do you think Romania went along with Barbarossa? It seems like Stalin would have been a more natural ally for them.

[Smitty-48]

You know, the Soviet tanks in 1941, were literally custom designed to invade Germany, the main Soviet tank before the T-34, was the BT-7M, and it was a two-in-one tank, could use tracks to cross the terrain until it got to the German autobahns, then it could shed its tracks and use the extra large rubber lined drive wheels with front axle steering, to speed along all the way to Berlin.

Why do you think Romania went along with Barbarossa? It seems like Stalin would have been a more natural ally for them.

No, the Romanians have never been natural Russian allies, the Romanians were in the Austro-Hungarian Empire which went to war with Russia over Serbia to kick the whole thing off in the first place, after Treaty of Versailles, the Romanian monarchy's official position was neutrality, backed up by the Entente Cordiale, Britain and France their guaruntors, but when France fell and Britain was under seige, Romania no longer had a protector from the Soviets, and the Iron Guard fascists rose to power in Romania and they sought the protection of a pact with Germany in lieu of the protection of Britain and France.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Plus, they're a bunch of fickle, untrustworthy gypsies. Who can say why they do what they do.

[Speaker to Animals]

Who can say why they do what they do.

That would be the military commissariat.

[heydaralon]

You know, the Soviet tanks in 1941, were literally custom designed to invade Germany, the main Soviet tank before the T-34, was the BT-7M, and it was a two-in-one tank, could use tracks to cross the terrain until it got to the German autobahns, then it could shed its tracks and use the extra large rubber lined drive wheels with front axle steering, to speed along all the way to Berlin.

Why do you think Romania went along with Barbarossa? It seems like Stalin would have been a more natural ally for them.

No, the Romanians have never been natural Russian allies, the Romanians were in the Austro-Hungarian Empire which went to war with Russia over Serbia to kick the whole thing off in the first place, after Treaty of Versailles, the Romanian monarchy's official position was neutrality, backed up by the Entente Cordiale, Britain and France their guaruntors, but when France fell and Britain was under seige, Romania no longer had a protector from the Soviets, and the Iron Guard fascists rose to power in Romania and they sought the protection of a pact with Germany in lieu of the protection of Britain and France.

I get that Poland hated the shit out of Russia, more than Germany and they refused Russian protection (which would have led to their direct absorption into the Soviet Union I guess) on the eve of the Invasion. Lets say the Poles had taken Russia up on its protection offer before Hitler made a deal with Russia to carve them up. How would that have changed the course of the war. The invasion of Poland was the spark that led Britain to get involved. If Poland was directly backed by Russia, how would Hitler have acted? If he did still invade, do we have British involvement?

[Smitty-48]

I get that Poland hated the shit out of Russia, more than Germany and they refused Russian protection (which would have led to their direct absorption into the Soviet Union I guess) on the eve of the Invasion. Lets say the Poles had taken Russia up on its protection offer before Hitler made a deal with Russia to carve them up. How would that have changed the course of the war. The invasion of Poland was the spark that led Britain to get involved. If Poland was directly backed by Russia, how would Hitler have acted? If he did still invade, do we have British involvement?

Well, the Poles were banking on Britain and France, forlorn hope perhaps, but they had no illusions about Stalin and the Soviets, if the Soviets had invaded Poland unilaterally however, the war could have gone in a completely different direction, with Britain and France siding with Hitler against Stalin, which is exactly why Stalin didn't do that, and instead baited Hitler into to doing it, setting him on a collision course with Britain and France instead.