Re: Operation Sealion

[Squire]

"But Hitler didn't have any "choice" about attacking the Soviet Union"

Yes, he did. The Germans planned on an eventual war with the Soviets, but not in 1941. The Soviets were not about to attack Germany. Read up on the history. There is no source that gives any credence to Stalin wanting a war with Germany in 1941. They too wanted to rearm and prepare, the war came too soon for them too, and they took terrible losses and hardships to eventually stop the Germans. 

"At the time 45 % of German equipment was horsedrawn"

So was everybody elses. Your comparing European armies of 1944-5 with armies of 1941. The USA was the most mechanised (eventually, not in 1941), but most other countries were not. Horse drawn power was SOP for most European armies in the early war years, it was not uncommon at all.

"SPAM", sure, that and Trucks. The most important contribution to the Red Army by the Allies was lend lease transports by the 1000s. Also combat aircraft, radios, and foodstuffs.

"Correct me if i'm wrong.. But i don't recall any of the Allies invading a country on bicycles in WWII."

Actually, we used them at Normandy, and the Germans had a lot more than bycyles, ask any veteran.

"You see the German army was obsolete when it invaded Poland."

Again, compared to who in 1939? the modern Poles? who fielded cavalry regiments? even in 1939 the Poles could not compete with Germany in tanks, a/c, and artillery. It is true that the real strength of the German Army was how it was deployed, using armor en masse, with close air support and artillery, and a proper strategy, as opposed to say having "better" stuff than France or Britain in 1940.

But back to my main point, it was Hitlers decision to invade Russia in 1941, and he absolutely had a choice. He chose badly, opening up a second front with an England still at war with Germany, into a campaign that turned into a 4 year war of attrition against a foe with huge manpower and industrial resources, that also had the wilingness to pay a heavy cost to win. 

As for Japan: How exactly would Japan defeat the USA? invasion? I hardly think they had the transports to do that in 1942. So, the USA builds up its military, even if they lost CVs at Pearl Harbor, and eventually launches a counter attack. Without stopping the USAs industry, they were doomed. They had no ability to bomb the USA, or invade it, so im not sure what they could have done save forestall the inevitable. The war would have gone on longer, probably into 1946, but Japan had no real hope unless the USA sued for terms, but thats a big "what if". Japans military hope the USA would do just that after Pearl Harbor and the fall of the Phillipines, sue for an armistice of some kind, they knew that was the only real hope.

[Angus]

Quite good IMHO Squire.
The German army was horsedrawn en masse, however it was the swiftest army in the world. It was supported with some superb vehicles, artillery and aircraft as well as a uniquely  close command.
When I was diving in this, I was baffled about how close they actually came to beating the USSR, their undoing being these and some more:
1. Attacking too late.
2. Attacking while at war with the UK.
3. Splitting their attack.
4. Declaring war on the USA (living up to the tripact agreement).
And....maybe by not pulling the japs in against the USSR from the east, thereby splitting the USA out of the game and tying up Zhukov's armies in the east....

Yet, there was more than a year of war before the reality dawned and the Axis started suffering one defeat after the other. And after they started their retreat in the east as well as loosing in the med, as well as being bombed around the clock, well the outcome was pretty clear. This would put us late in 1943? After that, with Hitler in the bridge there was no ground given, in a war that was going to be lost.....

As for Sealion, that also gives one some thoughts.  Imagine if Görings plan would have worked and the RAF had been defeated in a week or so, well, then the chance remains that the Germans could have towed an army across the channel under the curtain of an August night, large enough to get a foothold, and then carried on with the supplies and reinforcements while the LW AND their submarine forces tackled the RN. One thing for sure, had this been tried, it would have been one bloody fight. The RN did sometimes give no ground at all, there are many examples of that, and bear in mind that the LW could not stop operation Dynamo (Dunquerque).

[stephen waldron]

    Stalin had no intention of destroying Germany before Germany invaded ?  What history have you been reading ?  The core precept of Communist Ideology is the destruction of ALL OTHER FORMS OF GOVERNMENT !  Period !  No exception for National Socialism.  And the persecution of Communists didn't begin with Germany's invasion either.  Hitler despised Communists only slightly less than he hated Jews.  The Soviet and National Socialism were natural enemies.  The pact between Hitler and Stalin was nothing more than a RUSE, while both sides prepared to destroy the other.  Any WWII historian will tell you that is a fact.
    When asked what the greatest menace was posed by Germany during WWII, Winston Churchill replied.. "The U-Boat Menace".   But the advent of SONAR would soon render this "Greatest Menace" totally obsolete.  Just take a look at the casualty rate in the U-Boat Service.  It was hideous.  Making the Kamikaze and Bonsai attacks of the Japanese seem almost rational in comparison.
    Suggesting Germany could have invaded America and won the Second World War is hysterically funny.  At least Japan HAD a NAVY.  The Germans were "puddle pirates" by comparison.  But Japanese military fashion sense did lag way behind the Germans.  I'll give you that much.  But everything else you're saying sounds like historical revisionism to me. 

[Krusty]

While I don't agree with stephen there on all point, he's right about the peace treaty between Hitler and Stalin.

The treaty was only a way of buying time, to better build up a better attack. Both sides had this in mind. Keep in mind the speed with which the Soviet Union produced some of the BEST planes in the war. They realized they were hopelessly outclassed by Western equipment. The majority of aircraft in the Soviet arsenal were biplanes when Germany invaded.

However, this really goes back quite a long way before WW2, before Hitler, and before Stalin. For one example, look at Poland, and parts of Eastern Europe.

The idea that the Russians (then Soviets) would attack was not hard to fathom, and in fact every decent military planner would have seen it coming.

I think Hitler wanted to strike while he could, before the Soviet might was mobilized. A hard, fast, decisive attack was the best tactic against a numerically superior but technically inferior foe.

Had hitler stopped at the shores of France, set up a fortress of Europe, and starved Britain to death, he would have had MUCH better chances against the Eastern Front. More resources to pump into it.

[Angus]

Well, he tried the starving off Britain, and was at it at full power even as soon as in the BoB.
(Odd fact of history, on the 10th of may Hitler rolled into the lowlands only to get his day's report spoiled by the news of the British capturing Iceland on the same day, muhahahaha).
Anyway, the U-boats were all over already in 1940, and early on they had their "happy" period. Any historian will confirm that one to you mr. Waldron....as well as Hitler tried his best to bend Britain after his proposal for a truce....that includes all arms. (3)
As for the USSR  planning to invade W-Europe, - well, - I even started a thread aboput that...ages ago.
It is not yet completely established, but it has been published and written about. Out of memory, I have the TV series called "The cold war" (BBC?) as well as a book with the title "operation Iceberg" (again, out of memory, - handle me with care )
Now, both parties were opportunitists. Hitler did operate as a socialist for some time. And Hitler & Stalin were feeding each other while Britain fought Hitler...For operation Sealion Hitler would have been mostly running on Russian oil!

[Kweassa]

Stalin had no intention of destroying Germany before Germany invaded ?  What history have you been reading ?  The core precept of Communist Ideology is the destruction of ALL OTHER FORMS OF GOVERNMENT !  Period !  No exception for National Socialism.

 Unfortunately, people don't start out wars on ideology alone.

 The reality of modern warfare after the Great War, which defined as "total-war", dictates that any nation going into war is to commit every socio-economical resource it can muster, into a series of battles that will inevitably determine the very existence of the warring nations as an independant state. You don't go waging wars against someone because you don't like his politics, as if it was some sort of a hate crime.

 Besides, the very basic communist theories during Stalin's years define the World War as an "Imperialist War" in the first place - meaning that the Soviets thought that the very dynamics behind the war were capitalistic and imperialistic urges - which would in turn, suggest that communists should stay out of it[/i] while the capitalist nations fight each other and weaken themselves. Lenin and the Bolsheivks, during the days and months prior to the October Revolution, themselves noted the Great War as an imperialist war, and thus tried to convince most revolutionaries into taking a "revolutionary defeatism" attitude - in which they suggested every step must be taken to ensure the loss and defeat of the Russian Empire, so it would distance itself from the western allies and step away from the great mess of the WWI. Failing to do so, brought out the October Revolution in Russia, and forced a most grueling terms to the new Soviet government in the form of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. Such lessons were not forgotten during Stalin's reign.

 Your contention that Stalin tried to attack Germany first, simply because they were communist, is dysmal.  The full mobilization of the Red Army, even under the 'baptism of fire' from Barbarossa, and with most excellent and resourceful leaders like Zhukov, still took almost two years to complete. Only after 1943 did the Red Army finally become what pioneering Soviet military leaders like Marshall Tukhachevsky, before the Great Officer Purge, ever dreamt of. Stalin himself went out of contact in disbelief and grimace, with the General staff, when Barbarossa started. You think someone who was already prepared and expecting a war with the Germans, would show an attitude like that?

And the persecution of Communists didn't begin with Germany's invasion either.  Hitler despised Communists only slightly less than he hated Jews.  The Soviet and National Socialism were natural enemies.  The pact between Hitler and Stalin was nothing more than a RUSE, while both sides prepared to destroy the other.  Any WWII historian will tell you that is a fact.

 Which historian?

 I know for certain none of the modern-day historians dealing with the German-Soviet war ever says anything remotely close to what you suggest. What have you been reading? 1950's material?

When asked what the greatest menace was posed by Germany during WWII, Winston Churchill replied.. "The U-Boat Menace".   But the advent of SONAR would soon render this "Greatest Menace" totally obsolete.  Just take a look at the casualty rate in the U-Boat Service.  It was hideous.  Making the Kamikaze and Bonsai attacks of the Japanese seem almost rational in comparison.

 That's "Banzai", not "Bonsai". How would you feel if someone called the Japanese attack on December 7th, "Attack on Dull Harbor" instead of "Attack on Pearl Harbor"?

Suggesting Germany could have invaded America and won the Second World War is hysterically funny.  At least Japan HAD a NAVY.  The Germans were "puddle pirates" by comparison.  But Japanese military fashion sense did lag way behind the Germans.  I'll give you that much.  But everything else you're saying sounds like historical revisionism to me.

 Revisionism has its worths.

 For some reason, after the fall of the Soviet Union and experiencing the triumphalism of conservatism during the 1990s, there seems to have grown a strange sentiment in America which seems to denounce anything that has the word "revisionism" as if its some sort of a hippy history.

 A most tragic, unintelligent, and barbaric line of sentiments if I ever saw one. I'd suggest people actually buy and read books, and try to understand what brings out 'historical revisionism' and how the opinions, and the logic behind it change over the years, before they try ridiculing something they have no clue about whatsoever. As it is, people are making idiots out of themselves, and dismayingly, seem to be proud about it.

 

[Kweassa]

Well, he tried the starving off Britain, and was at it at full power even as soon as in the BoB.

 Indeed.

 The infamous "Directive No.21. Operation Barbarossa" issued by Hitler himself, clearly states;

The Air Force will have to make available for the support of the Army in the Eastern Campaign forces of adequate strength to ensure a rapid termination of land action and to give the East German territories maximum protection against enemy air raids. This making of the main effort in the east must not be carried to a point at which we can no longer adequately protect the totality of our battle and our armament zones against enemy air attacks, nor must the offensive against England, and in particular against England's supply routes, suffer in consequence.

 This, coupled with Tilt's earlier comments:

Hitler thought the whole thing a distraction from his Eastern European ambitions and eventually just wanted London bombed into submission.

 ... brings out an interesting question as to what the real intention behind Barbarossa were.

 Hitler's Directive No.21 is quiet clear, and strategically sound, in pointing out certain conditions were to be met to achieve total victory over the Soviets. Amazingly, despite the historical success of the German military 'blitz' for a whole year after Barbarossa started in June of 1941, it turns out that none of the major obectives and conditions Hitler set with Directive 21 were ever actually met.

 The Northern armygroup failed to take Leningrad (Leningrad survived for the entirety of the war), and consequentially the Center armygroup failed to cooperate with the Northern group in driving to Moscow. The very warnings and dangers the Directive has cautioned about the Luftwaffe in the Eastern Front, were realized during 1942. The prime objective of Barbarossa, which was to form a Volga-Archangel line, to sever the Soviets from their important industrial provinces, were ultimately foiled, due to the Soviets' amazing evacuation of industry to Siberia.

 But the most important of all, the very beginning of Directive 21 states;

The armed forces of Germany must be prepared, even before the conclusion of the war with England, to defeat Soviet Russia in one rapid campaign ('Operation Barbarossa').

 This more or less implies that Hitler clearly thought the war against England would take a lot longer than even one against USSR. Hitler's ambitions in the Eastern Front was certainly big, but still, he seems to have thought that the Eastern Front campaign would as swiftly end as the offensive of Ardennes. The Eastern Front offensive, particularly the intended final destination of the Southern armygroup - the Caucasus, Grozny, and Baku, all rich in oil - seems to imply that Hitler was preparing a very-long standoff against the UK, in which oil reserves would become critically important in case 'unreliable' Stalin would become uncooperative in exporting fuel sources.

 This is made clear in that the final parts of Directive 21 mentions;

It is important that all Commanders-in-Chiefs make it plain that the taking of necessary measures in connection with this directive is being done as a precaution against the possibility of the Russians adopting an attitude towards us other than what it has been up to now.

 Hitler viewed Stalin as an 'unreliable', and possibly 'potentially hostile' ally.

 So it would seem that Hitler decided Operation Seeloewe would never be realized without some kind of long-term preparation, and decided to claim major Soviet provinces with high industrial capacity and oil reserves, before Stalin ever got the chance to become hostile towards the Third Reich.

 It was basically a "pre-emptive strike" of WW2, intended to end quickly, with rich rewards. At least, initially it seems Hitler viewed the Eastern Front as lasting shorter than the Front against England - until the Soviets refused to cave in, and things started to get out of hand.


[Edit]
ps) The word 'pre-emptive strike' used above is not in conjunction as the same wording 'pre-emptive strike' used by, for instance, Viktor Suvorov, who views Barbarossa was a 'pre-emptive' strike against a realized Soviet threat against Germany, in which he views the mobilization of the Soviet armies in the border regions as being offensive, rather than defensive, in nature. The 'pre-emptive strike' as I have mentioned, is more of a psychological one, in which Hitler either misinterpreted the 'Soviet threat', or through paranoia, decided to attack first in case the USSR would become hostile. 

 The 'pre-emptive strike against realized miliatry threat' theory, as that of Suvorov and those who share his views, are largely discredited nowadays.

[E25280]

The June/July issue of World War Two Magazine has an interesting article about Western donated equipment to the Soviet Union in 1941, not from the US, but from the UK.  It makes the point that small quantities of aid at cruicial times can have a disproportionate impact.

For example, I am sure everyone can agree that in the grand context of WWII, 90 tanks doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  But what if those 90 tanks were a significant portion of available armor at the time?

According to research done by a team of Soviet historians, the Soviet Union lost a staggering 20,500 tanks from June 22 to December 31, 1941.  At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow . . . Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types . . .

. . . According to Biriukov's service diary, the first 20 British tanks arrived at the Soviet tank training school in Kazan on October 28, 1941, at which time a further 120 tanks were unloaded at the port of Archangel . . .

The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed.  Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting.  By the end of 1941, Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised.

The British Military Mission to Moscow noted that by December 9, about ninety British tanks had already been in action with Soviet forces . . . In fact, the British intercepted German communications indicating that German forces had first come in contact with British tanks on the Eastern front on November 26, 1941.

The article goes on to explain that British provided Hurricanes and Tomahawks provided 15% of the strength of the Soviet 6th Fighter Air Corp defending Moscow by January 1942.  Tomahawks also provided the air cover for the supply convoys crossing frozen lake Lagoda to Lenningrad.  The British also provided a large number of metal cutting and machine tools that assisted the Soviets in reconstructing their war industry after the evacuation of their factories east of the Urals.

In essence, British aid was making a difference during the Soviet Union's "darkest hour".  Did it make all the difference, staving off Soviet defeat?  "Tipping points" are always arguable, but the fact the contribution was significant is not.

Even generalizing to WWII as a whole, the Soviet Economy was as close to 100% devoted to fighting the war as any could be.  Every item provided to the Soviets was an item they did not have to produce, freeing resources to devote elsewhere.  The Soviets could build more tanks because they did not have to build as many trucks.  The Soviets could field more soldiers and factory workers because they needed fewer farmers.  They could build effective airplanes because of the aluminum provided to them, otherwise they would have had to rely on lesser designs with the materials they did have available.  Is the Soviet Union defeated in the absence of Western Aid?  Probably not.  Is there a relatively mobile, well equipped, well fed Soviet Army crashing into Germany in Spring 1945?  Also probably not.

[Bodhi]

It seems to me, that had Hitler imposed more of a mandate for sub-surface warfare in the waters off Norway and the far north atlantic to prevent supplies reaching the Soviets in the first place, the invasion would have had far better results.

It is a here nor there though, it never happened as did not the proper application and direction of force in the initial parts of Barbarossa.  Instead, the Germans went after so thought strategic assets that turned out to be not so strategic to begin with.

[Angus]

Many good points here IMHO, and hats off for you Kweassa 
Here:
"The armed forces of Germany must be prepared, even before the conclusion of the war with England, to defeat Soviet Russia in one rapid campaign ('Operation Barbarossa').

 This more or less implies that Hitler clearly thought the war against England would take a lot longer than even one against USSR."

Hence Hitler's hopes to make peace with Britain.....

As for the arms, tools and supplies to the USSR during their darkest hour, bear in mind that the German parachute army was history, half the LW (and notably transport and bombers) were tied up elsewhere, and there both land combat and occupation was tying up quite a force.
I think I have the numbers, - must look, but roughly estimated, Hitler's Barbarossa was only half-strength because of the was with the British....