ADVERTISEMENT

QUESTION...................Nazi-Soviet "nonagression pact treaty" signed August 23, 1939

Michael.Felli

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2013
3,914
614
1
I understand that Stalin could use this pact to "buy time" to build up his military. I get that. But, why did Hitler wait almost two years to attack Russia on June 22, 1941? Both countries hated and mistrusted one another.

Does anyone have a good explanation why Hitler waited 22 months to attack Russia?
 
I understand that Stalin could use this pact to "buy time" to build up his military. I get that. But, why did Hitler wait almost two years to attack Russia on June 22, 1941? Both countries hated and mistrusted one another.

Does anyone have a good explanation why Hitler waited 22 months to attack Russia?

Probably the same reason that Hitler screwed up in not attacking England. He was NUTS.
 
I understand that Stalin could use this pact to "buy time" to build up his military. I get that. But, why did Hitler wait almost two years to attack Russia on June 22, 1941? Both countries hated and mistrusted one another.

Does anyone have a good explanation why Hitler waited 22 months to attack Russia?
Several go his generals lost their positions opposing Operation Barbarosa. They knew that Germany didn't have the resources to command all of Russia even if they took Moscow. Also, Hitler was putting citizens to work for their war machine in captured countries. Ford, for example, in France.
 
Operation Barbarosa's fatal flaw was it's three front attack with the most fatal being the seizure of the southern oil fields that took too much time and resources. A single front attack of Moscow was very doable. Cutting the head off the snake may have worked, thank God Hitler was a terrible military stategerist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu1969a
Signing the treaty and waiting wasn't the issue. Fighting a war on 2 fronts is only reason Germany was defeated. Odd that Hilter didn't learn his lessons from WWI. Had Hitler waited and not declared war on the US, he would have taken Britain. Germany's advanced weapons would have have crushed Russia. Hell, Germany would have been flying jets against propeller planes, not to mention the V1 and V2 rockets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu1969a
Operation Barbarosa's fatal flaw was it's three front attack with the most fatal being the seizure of the southern oil fields that took too much time and resources. A single front attack of Moscow was very doable. Cutting the head off the snake may have worked, thank God Hitler was a terrible military stategerist.

Not to mention his attempt to take Leningrad, which took several years and was ultimately unsuccessful. I recently read a book about it,
"Leningrad: Siege and Symphony: The Story of the Great City Terrorized by Stalin, Starved by Hitler, Immortalized by Shostakovich" by Brian Moynahan.

It goes into great detail on the suffering of the citizens of Leningrad, and Stalin's insistence that Shostakovich's 7th Symphony (The Leningrad Symphony) be performed in Leningrad during the siege. As an interesting sidenote, Stalin knew that when Hitler took a large city he liked to visit, stay in the most stylish accommodations, and hobnob with any remaining artists/performers. Thus, Stalin had several Moscow ballerinas trained to kill Hitler if they ever met him, and had a ton of explosives wired into the Hotel Moscow. Apparently everyone who wired the hotel was killed in the war, so the explosives were forgotten until they started to renovate the hotel about 10 years ago and discovered that it was still wired to explode. I stayed there in 1995; it is a good thing the charge never went off.
 
Signing the treaty and waiting wasn't the issue. Fighting a war on 2 fronts is only reason Germany was defeated. Odd that Hilter didn't learn his lessons from WWI. Had Hitler waited and not declared war on the US, he would have taken Britain. Germany's advanced weapons would have have crushed Russia. Hell, Germany would have been flying jets against propeller planes, not to mention the V1 and V2 rockets.
Yup, thank God Hitler was insane. If he had finished off the Brits, not declared war on the US, then invaded Russia, Germany most likely would have won. Doubt the US gets involved in Europe with no Britain to stage from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
Yup, thank God Hitler was insane. If he had finished off the Brits, not declared war on the US, then invaded Russia, Germany most likely would have won. Doubt the US gets involved in Europe with no Britain to stage from.

as a sub guy, I read a lot of books about the U Boat campaigns and Admiral Doenitz. Rumors floated around that the Allies held back on assassinating Hitler BECAUSE he was making so many tactical errors, and if Hitler had been killed, Doenitz would have withdrawn from Russia and focused solely on the European campaigns.
 
Signing the treaty and waiting wasn't the issue. Fighting a war on 2 fronts is only reason Germany was defeated. Odd that Hilter didn't learn his lessons from WWI. Had Hitler waited and not declared war on the US, he would have taken Britain. Germany's advanced weapons would have have crushed Russia. Hell, Germany would have been flying jets against propeller planes, not to mention the V1 and V2 rockets.

That wasn't the question, though.

Hitler hated Russia and vice-versa. I understand Stalin signing the treaty to buy more time to increase his military numbers. But, why did Hitler wait 22 months to attack Russia? Why didn't he attack after Poland fell, for example? Or Spring, 1940?
 
Not to mention his attempt to take Leningrad, which took several years and was ultimately unsuccessful. I recently read a book about it,
"Leningrad: Siege and Symphony: The Story of the Great City Terrorized by Stalin, Starved by Hitler, Immortalized by Shostakovich" by Brian Moynahan.

It goes into great detail on the suffering of the citizens of Leningrad, and Stalin's insistence that Shostakovich's 7th Symphony (The Leningrad Symphony) be performed in Leningrad during the siege. As an interesting sidenote, Stalin knew that when Hitler took a large city he liked to visit, stay in the most stylish accommodations, and hobnob with any remaining artists/performers. Thus, Stalin had several Moscow ballerinas trained to kill Hitler if they ever met him, and had a ton of explosives wired into the Hotel Moscow. Apparently everyone who wired the hotel was killed in the war, so the explosives were forgotten until they started to renovate the hotel about 10 years ago and discovered that it was still wired to explode. I stayed there in 1995; it is a good thing the charge never went off.

Shosty's 7th is very good if tedious in parts, the march in the first movement buildup is memorable. Shosty's 10th written in '53 is a much better reflection, in musical terms, of the Stalin regime.
 
That wasn't the question, though.

Hitler hated Russia and vice-versa. I understand Stalin signing the treaty to buy more time to increase his military numbers. But, why did Hitler wait 22 months to attack Russia? Why didn't he attack after Poland fell, for example? Or Spring, 1940?
Because he knew the Soviet military was a hollow shell. He also knew that under the Communist system of rewarding political performance rather than military it would get no better any time soon.
He felt the Western Allies were the bigger threat. He and the Generals were actually surprised how quickly they rolled through France and the Low Countries. In fact, in one of the few mistakes of the Western blitzkrieg, he paused on his drive to the Channel to consolidate fearing an Allied trap.
There was,of course, no such trap. The pause prevented the Germans from bagging the entire British Expeditionary Force, which may have forced Britain to abandon N. Africa and other places they held on to.
 
That wasn't the question, though.

Hitler hated Russia and vice-versa. I understand Stalin signing the treaty to buy more time to increase his military numbers. But, why did Hitler wait 22 months to attack Russia? Why didn't he attack after Poland fell, for example? Or Spring, 1940?

Because he would have been attacked by France and Britain and then had a 2 front war - which he ended up getting anyway.
 
I don't agree with those denigrating the Soviet army. While not the best in technology, Russia is famous for getting things done with nothing but brute force. They just threw bodies at the Nazi war machine and were absolutely ruthless.

Also, they had several designs of tanks superior to ours and, many believe, supiorior to the Nazis (and they had the fuel to power them). Finally, their rifles were considered vastly supiorior than the Nazis.

However, overall, the Russians beat them with supiorior resources and logistics.

Why did hitler wait? To consolidate his Western Europe resources, conquered lands and people, to apply to the war machine and the Russians superior resources.
 
That wasn't the question, though.

Hitler hated Russia and vice-versa. I understand Stalin signing the treaty to buy more time to increase his military numbers. But, why did Hitler wait 22 months to attack Russia? Why didn't he attack after Poland fell, for example? Or Spring, 1940?

Perhaps even Hitler didn't think his military was quite ready to take on Russia in 1939. His time line to build up his military might was maybe two more years. He was overly confidant by 1941 that he could over run Russia. Being the military genius that he wasn't worked out for us.
 
The German soldiers were vastly superior fighters compared to the Soviets. I remember reading in a book that 1 Nazi was the equivalent to something like 150 Soviet soldiers in terms of skill and training. In fact, the Soviets used many prisoners (mostly Polish refugees) forced to be soldiers under the command of communist-sympathizing Polish AWOL citizens and women on the front lines.

The eastern front had more underlying factors than most seem to remember or discuss.

For example, while it was but a minor cog in the wheel, don't discount the Warsaw uprising from the Polish AK that substantially weakened the Nazi stronghold in the capital city. While their distain for the Poles was not as severe as the Germans, the Soviets didn't take kindly to them either (both nations wanted a piece of Poland as their own). The Soviet advance was pushing west and when the underground militia still loyal to the Polish Gov't stationed out of London got word of it, they began a counter attack on the Nazis that had been planned for years.

However, when the Soviets found out, they basically halted their plan to take Warsaw leaving the over matched and outmanned Poles for dead. The Warsaw uprising combined with a significant military assault from the Soviets would have taken the city quickly. Additionally, the Soviets would not allow allied airplanes to land and refuel in the country, thus isolating the Poles from the other allied forces as well. It wasn't until after Polish AK finally surrendered that the Soviets continued their advance.
 
I don't agree with those denigrating the Soviet army. While not the best in technology, Russia is famous for getting things done with nothing but brute force. They just threw bodies at the Nazi war machine and were absolutely ruthless.

Also, they had several designs of tanks superior to ours and, many believe, supiorior to the Nazis (and they had the fuel to power them). Finally, their rifles were considered vastly supiorior than the Nazis.

However, overall, the Russians beat them with supiorior resources and logistics.

Why did hitler wait? To consolidate his Western Europe resources, conquered lands and people, to apply to the war machine and the Russians superior resources.

I am not downing the Soviet military. I am pointing out Germany's advanced technology. It was light years ahead on weapons development, especially in the air. Germany would have owned the skies over Europe. Air power wins wars not ground troops.

I strongly disagree the guns. MG42 was as good as it gets. Not to mention Germany developed and deployed the first assault rife. The MP44 was a difference maker. Soviets copied the design to make the AK47.

34589x1.jpg


image002-640x240.jpg
 
I don't agree with those denigrating the Soviet army. While not the best in technology, Russia is famous for getting things done with nothing but brute force. They just threw bodies at the Nazi war machine and were absolutely ruthless.

Also, they had several designs of tanks superior to ours and, many believe, supiorior to the Nazis (and they had the fuel to power them). Finally, their rifles were considered vastly supiorior than the Nazis.

However, overall, the Russians beat them with supiorior resources and logistics.

Why did hitler wait? To consolidate his Western Europe resources, conquered lands and people, to apply to the war machine and the Russians superior resources.
Perhaps you missed the Soviet performance against Finland?
Yes, in the end they won. By part way through the war they had better tanks, planes and troops.
But when Germany invaded in 1941 they were woefully unprepared, ill equipped and under trained. Their command and control due to their political system was horrid. The winter and throwing mass quantities of cannon fodder at the Germans is the only thing that saved them.
If the Germans had the troops on the Eastern Front that were still engaged with the Brits, I think Germany takes Moscow in that first offensive.
 
And of course the Soviets massacred all the Officer Corps of the Polish Army in 1940 in the Katyn Forrest and then they and the Nazi's divided up Poland - one of the many reasons the Pole's have no love for either the Germans or Russians.
 
Awesome. Just the forum where I would have expected information and discussion on the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. Speaking of nonaggression, who is Pitt playing this Saturday?
 
I don't agree with those denigrating the Soviet army. While not the best in technology, Russia is famous for getting things done with nothing but brute force. They just threw bodies at the Nazi war machine and were absolutely ruthless.

Also, they had several designs of tanks superior to ours and, many believe, supiorior to the Nazis (and they had the fuel to power them). Finally, their rifles were considered vastly supiorior than the Nazis.

However, overall, the Russians beat them with supiorior resources and logistics.

Why did hitler wait? To consolidate his Western Europe resources, conquered lands and people, to apply to the war machine and the Russians superior resources.

TCM has been showing WWII training films, made by the US govt, to teach key concepts to their quickly expanding military.

A one to two hour plus film was about Russia, its military and its defense strategy.

IIRC, they showed maps of Western European countries' defense lines. They all tended to be concentrated along their borders.

The Nazi blitkreig attacks created a massive, highly mobile force at a weak point. Once they overwhelmed or bypassed the peripheral line, they raced to capture the capital.

This strategy worked well, in country after country.

The film said the Soviets created a different defense plan, against the Nazis. The Soviets massed 3 separate roughly parallel lines of defense.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Nazis attacked the first line of defense. When it was breached, as it had been in other countries, essentially the entire first line would fall back to double the strength of the second line.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

If that stronger second line was breached, those two remaining lines fell back to reinforce the third line.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

So the Nazis created a bubble, with their surge, but they didn't quickly break through, as they had throughout Europe. As they advanced, the Nazis continued to face even stronger forces.

That way the Soviets thwarted the quick strike advantage of the highly mobile Nazi mechanized forces.

The Soviets wanted to bog down the Nazis, force them to deal with long supply lines and a protracted conflict, where they also had to battle the Russian winter.

Then the Soviets chose to defend the cities. That was a huge equalizer, because it neutralized the Nazis quick strike mechanized attacks. They couldn't use their mobilized speed as an advantage in close urban fighting.

The Nazis were forced into more man-to-man and small group efforts in an urban setting. That put the forces on a much more level playing field, so to speak.

Whether that was a completely accurate description, it was part of US Defense Dept training of their own personnel.

======

The segment on the Nazis strategy against Britain was also fascinating.
In brief, the Nazis sent in a huge initial air attack. But the Brits countered with a surprising air defense.

The Nazis lost far more planes in the first wave. But even worse for the Third Reich, they lost a significant percentage of their pilots and crews.

The Brits lost a lot of planes, but they were able to recover a significant number of their downed pilots and crews. That initial wave set back the Nazi forces, in ways that they did not expect.

Subsequent plans to attack Britain were also covered, as well as the brutal Nazi mass bombings, meant to kill all, even civilians. Much more to it, but the Brits first successful air defense was very important in the overall defense of Britain.

As always, any updates or comments are welcome.
 
Last edited:
Shosty's 7th is very good if tedious in parts, the march in the first movement buildup is memorable. Shosty's 10th written in '53 is a much better reflection, in musical terms, of the Stalin regime.

Ah, the tenth. Shastakovich hid his initials in a recurring musical cryptogram gram (DSCH) using German musical notation to give the musical finger to Stalin, demonstrating that the individual still survived in the hell of homo sovieticus.
 
It's always good for a laugh to see an Air Power! proponent still hanging around. You should know that joint doctrine and operating concepts dictate how DoD integrates joint capabilities, to both ensure joint interdependence and minimize the critical vulnerabilities that reliance on a single capability creates. There are on active duty a good number of officers who either don't grasp that doctrine, or are too parochial to accept it. Speaking of parochial, as a (retired) career Marine officer I have a hard time with a lot of the nonsense coming out of the 5-sided insane asylum, but that's not a story for this board. (And airpower alone isn't the story behind strategic OR operational dominance).

With respect to the OP's question, the answers lie in multiple volumes of official histories of the war, and you'd have to study most of them to find a complete answer. However, as many of you here pointed out, there are a variety of political, military strategic, and operational level reasons Hitler played his cards the way he did. Not the least of these reasons was the very different ways in which he personally viewed Britain and the Soviet Union (admiration vs contempt). He actually had a damn fine chance of pulling off the blitz on the Soviet Union despite the fact he failed to set important conditions for success (not securing the Med for one). He had the force ratios, equipment superiority (not everywhere but in enough places), operational level leadership, and all those myriad capabilities that collectively generate the combat power needed to get to Moscow (and beyond). One, among several, important elements helped to trip him up. Standing just behind every operational planner or "warfighter" is a logistician who will often lean forward and whisper in his ear "you can't do that" when the warfighter begins to draw large, sweeping arrows on the map. In too many important areas, too many logisticians were either ignored, or just as likely, didn't speak up.

Speaking again of Airpower!, will Hack try to light up Army in the rain if the starting RBs sit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: T J
It's always good for a laugh to see an Air Power! proponent still hanging around. You should know that joint doctrine and operating concepts dictate how DoD integrates joint capabilities, to both ensure joint interdependence and minimize the critical vulnerabilities that reliance on a single capability creates. There are on active duty a good number of officers who either don't grasp that doctrine, or are too parochial to accept it. Speaking of parochial, as a (retired) career Marine officer I have a hard time with a lot of the nonsense coming out of the 5-sided insane asylum, but that's not a story for this board. (And airpower alone isn't the story behind strategic OR operational dominance).

With respect to the OP's question, the answers lie in multiple volumes of official histories of the war, and you'd have to study most of them to find a complete answer. However, as many of you here pointed out, there are a variety of political, military strategic, and operational level reasons Hitler played his cards the way he did. Not the least of these reasons was the very different ways in which he personally viewed Britain and the Soviet Union (admiration vs contempt). He actually had a damn fine chance of pulling off the blitz on the Soviet Union despite the fact he failed to set important conditions for success (not securing the Med for one). He had the force ratios, equipment superiority (not everywhere but in enough places), operational level leadership, and all those myriad capabilities that collectively generate the combat power needed to get to Moscow (and beyond). One, among several, important elements helped to trip him up. Standing just behind every operational planner or "warfighter" is a logistician who will often lean forward and whisper in his ear "you can't do that" when the warfighter begins to draw large, sweeping arrows on the map. In too many important areas, too many logisticians were either ignored, or just as likely, didn't speak up.

Speaking again of Airpower!, will Hack try to light up Army in the rain if the starting RBs sit?


"...I have a hard time with a lot of the nonsense coming out of the 5-sided insane asylum."

You don't think that the DoD purpose it to protect the United States and win wars, do you?

11363798_868242003261199_1796011367_n.jpg
 
TCM has been showing WWII training films, made by the US govt, to teach key concepts to their quickly expanding military.

A one to two hour plus film was about Russia, its military and its defense strategy.

IIRC, they showed maps of Western European countries' defense lines. They all tended to be concentrated along their borders.

The Nazi blitkreig attacks created a massive, highly mobile force at a weak point. Once they overwhelmed or bypassed the peripheral line, they raced to capture the capital.

This strategy worked well, in country after country.

The film said the Soviets created a different defense plan, against the Nazis. The Soviets massed 3 separate roughly parallel lines of defense.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Nazis attacked the first line of defense. When it was breached, as it had been in other countries, essentially the entire first line would fall back to double the strength of the second line.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

If that stronger second line was breached, those two remaining lines fell back to reinforce the third line.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

So the Nazis created a bubble, with their surge, but they didn't quickly break through, as they had throughout Europe. As they advanced, the Nazis continued to face even stronger forces.

That way the Soviets thwarted the quick strike advantage of the highly mobile Nazi mechanized forces.

The Soviets wanted to bog down the Nazis, force them to deal with long supply lines and a protracted conflict, where they also had to battle the Russian winter.

Then the Soviets chose to defend the cities. That was a huge equalizer, because it neutralized the Nazis quick strike mechanized attacks. They couldn't use their mobilized speed as an advantage in close urban fighting.

The Nazis were forced into more man-to-man and small group efforts in an urban setting. That put the forces on a much more level laying field, so to speak.

Whether that was a completely accurate description, it was part of US Defense Dept training of their own personnel.

======

The segment on the Nazis strategy against Britain was also fascinating.
In brief, the Nazis sent in a huge initial air attack. But the Brits countered with a surprising air defense.

The Nazis lost far more planes in the first wave. But even worse for the Third Reich, they lost a significant percentage of their pilots and crews.

The Brits lost a lot of planes, but they were able to recover a significant number of their downed pilots and crews. That initial wave set back the Nazi forces, in ways that they did not expect.

Subsequent plans to attack Britain were also covered, as well as the brutal Nazi mass bombings, meant to kill all, even civilians. Much more to it, but the Brits first successful air defense was very important in the overall defense of Britain.

As always, any updates or comments are welcome.

Great post, TJ.

One of the mistakes people make is that they get these "weapons" and take them out of context in the times. The German weaponry was great, when it worked and in ideal conditions. German rifles and machine guns didn't hold up to the harsh weather in the field, especially in cold and muddy weather and the more simple Kalishinikov rifles performed almost without flaw. The German Panzers were great tanks, but Germany didn't have the fuel to sustain these massive devices so how effective were they after the blitz? Russia had the T-34, widely considered the best tank in the war...and, they had the fuel to run them. The US, on the other hand, opted for a ton of small, disposable tanks (which worked well). On top of that, the Germans feared the Katyusha rockets more than any other. It is unclear how effective they were, as real weaponry, but they were fantastic weapons against the German psychy. And we haven't discussed Russia's incredible arsenal of artillery.


At the end of the day, their weaponry was just fine. What the Nazis couldn't counter was the vast expanse of Russia and vast resources. The Allies fought the German resources; factories, raw materials, transportation, infrastructure. Imagine that with Russia that goes from Eastern Europe to the Pacific Ocean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T J
"Come and See" Russia movie worth watching. Was posted here a number of years ago. You can watch it on YouTube

 
Let us also not forget a few things about winter 1939 through spring 1941:

France had a huge army, and the BEF were en route to France, Hitler had to be cognizant of this and not fling most of his army against USSR, which was an important trade partner as well, right up to the invasion.
Also, Europe was not under total control of Hitler. Sure, Hungary and Romania and Bulgaria were satellites, but Yugoslavia was not (and would resist German control for the duration of the war), and Italy got involved with Albania. And Greece was also unconquered. So a potential southern Europe front was another threat (not from the Greeks mind you, but UK forces using it).

Also, Hitler was obsessed with Norway, mostly for economic reasons (nickel, iron ore, etc.). That used up some forces in spring 1940 as well. The war in Africa also was using resources as well. Troops, tanks and fuel were not unlimited for Germany.

Hitler's generals were not universally confident in the walkover to come with the French and UK. 1914-1918 was not a distant memory and those lessons were still sinking in, and being used to good effect in the coming fight. But certainty in battle rarely survives the opening onslaught.

And for the air power guy, here's a joke from a Clancy book, "Red Storm Rising": Two Soviet generals were sipping tea at a Paris bistro, and one of them wondered to the other "Have you heard who won the air war?" Something to ponder. The Germans had almost complete air superiority over the USSR in 1941-2 and were unable to defeat the Red Army. While I'm sympathetic to your point, air power does have limitations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: masterbaker65
So much of WWII can be explained by examining WW1. The lessons of WW1 were fresh in people's mind in 1939 to include Hitler. Hitler as a front line soldier in WW1 knew Germany had made a mistake in the initial invasion of France and Low Counties which led to Germany fighting a two front war in WW1. So signing a treaty with Stalin made sense as it allowed Germany to concentrate its forces against France, England and Belgium. After taking France and Belgium and after the failure of the Battle of Britain this left the German Army with little to do. The war against England involved naval forces and some air units but did not require a major commitment of the Germany Army.
Stalin had decimated the general officer ranks of the Red Army with purges in the late '30s that made the USSR look vulnerable. Stalin initial reaction was to go into a funk and order that all front line units hold there positions. This order and the lack of leaders caused many Red Army units to be cut off and defeated. Just as the invasion of the USSR was starting to slow down, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor. Hitler declares war on the US. At that point Hitler was doomed to fight a two front war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
Great post, TJ.

One of the mistakes people make is that they get these "weapons" and take them out of context in the times. The German weaponry was great, when it worked and in ideal conditions. German rifles and machine guns didn't hold up to the harsh weather in the field, especially in cold and muddy weather and the more simple Kalishinikov rifles performed almost without flaw. The German Panzers were great tanks, but Germany didn't have the fuel to sustain these massive devices so how effective were they after the blitz? Russia had the T-34, widely considered the best tank in the war...and, they had the fuel to run them. The US, on the other hand, opted for a ton of small, disposable tanks (which worked well). On top of that, the Germans feared the Katyusha rockets more than any other. It is unclear how effective they were, as real weaponry, but they were fantastic weapons against the German psychy. And we haven't discussed Russia's incredible arsenal of artillery.


At the end of the day, their weaponry was just fine. What the Nazis couldn't counter was the vast expanse of Russia and vast resources. The Allies fought the German resources; factories, raw materials, transportation, infrastructure. Imagine that with Russia that goes from Eastern Europe to the Pacific Ocean.
The weaponry was just fine. The T-34 may indeed have been the best tank of the war. However, of the 1000 they had at the outset, due to poor maintenance, training and readiness not many were serviceable. They had some local success, but they were routed on a massive scale early due to their shortcomings in readiness, training, and command/control.
It was indeed the vastness of the place that allowed them to trade space (and bodies) for time until those shortcomings were overcome.
 
Hitler needed anger management .......:mad:and never got it..........One day he got pissed and invaded the largest country on earth.....but the first response is what I would go with........He thought England was doomed (Listened to his Air Marshall too much....thought he could bomb England into submission) He did not want a two front war.........but he got one anyway.

CURRENT EVENT NOTE FOR THE WISE INSERTED HERE.....Bomb ISIS all you want.......STILL need boots on the ground...............

BTW: Stalin had more people killed than Hitler.........and yet we were his allies........Politics makes strange bedfellows........
Wonder who are BOT have been sleeping with??? Or have slept with????
 
TCM has been showing WWII training films, made by the US govt, to teach key concepts to their quickly expanding military.

A one to two hour plus film was about Russia, its military and its defense strategy.

IIRC, they showed maps of Western European countries' defense lines. They all tended to be concentrated along their borders.

The Nazi blitkreig attacks created a massive, highly mobile force at a weak point. Once they overwhelmed or bypassed the peripheral line, they raced to capture the capital.

This strategy worked well, in country after country.

The film said the Soviets created a different defense plan, against the Nazis. The Soviets massed 3 separate roughly parallel lines of defense.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Nazis attacked the first line of defense. When it was breached, as it had been in other countries, essentially the entire first line would fall back to double the strength of the second line.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

If that stronger second line was breached, those two remaining lines fell back to reinforce the third line.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

So the Nazis created a bubble, with their surge, but they didn't quickly break through, as they had throughout Europe. As they advanced, the Nazis continued to face even stronger forces.

That way the Soviets thwarted the quick strike advantage of the highly mobile Nazi mechanized forces.

The Soviets wanted to bog down the Nazis, force them to deal with long supply lines and a protracted conflict, where they also had to battle the Russian winter.

Then the Soviets chose to defend the cities. That was a huge equalizer, because it neutralized the Nazis quick strike mechanized attacks. They couldn't use their mobilized speed as an advantage in close urban fighting.

The Nazis were forced into more man-to-man and small group efforts in an urban setting. That put the forces on a much more level laying field, so to speak.

Whether that was a completely accurate description, it was part of US Defense Dept training of their own personnel.

======

The segment on the Nazis strategy against Britain was also fascinating.
In brief, the Nazis sent in a huge initial air attack. But the Brits countered with a surprising air defense.

The Nazis lost far more planes in the first wave. But even worse for the Third Reich, they lost a significant percentage of their pilots and crews.

The Brits lost a lot of planes, but they were able to recover a significant number of their downed pilots and crews. That initial wave set back the Nazi forces, in ways that they did not expect.

Subsequent plans to attack Britain were also covered, as well as the brutal Nazi mass bombings, meant to kill all, even civilians. Much more to it, but the Brits first successful air defense was very important in the overall defense of Britain.

As always, any updates or comments are welcome.

The Germans didn't help themselves either with the way they brutalized the same people who initially viewed them as liberators.
 
I understand that Stalin could use this pact to "buy time" to build up his military. I get that. But, why did Hitler wait almost two years to attack Russia on June 22, 1941? Both countries hated and mistrusted one another.

Does anyone have a good explanation why Hitler waited 22 months to attack Russia?

I firmly believe that Germany would have preferred to "attack" Russia first. The problem was the only way to do so was through Poland. AND Poland had a treaty with England and France. So without the "pact" had Germany invaded Poland they would have had to deal with all three powers at once. The reason many believe Russia would have been the the primary target was for Germany's need of natural resources, something France did not really offer. As Germany's resources were being reduced it became paramount to attack Russia. Actually, that failure was the real cause of Germany's demise.
In addition the Germans believed they could make short work of the French. The Germans had mixed thinking regarding a quick victory over Russia.

Interesting that recent documents have shown that Russia offered to send 1 million soldiers to the German border only a few weeks before they signed the pact with Germany. Timing is everything.
The offer apparently was made to upper leadership of both France and England. It would have required Poland to allow the troops access to the German border.
 
Russia was negotiating with both UK/France and Germany. War probably could've been averted (or put off a few years) had right choice been made by Stalin. Hitler could not fight and win a 2-front war. Alas, Stalin was not known for always making the fight choice.

Again, many German generals were not convinced of a quick battle with UK/France. WWI weighed heavily on many psyches, and rightfully so.

Also, consider this: The Balkans/Greek campaign lasted longer than Hitler wanted, and it pushed Barbarossa from mid-May to late June 1941. I think the Wehrmacht could've used those extra 4-5 weeks at the gates of Moscow. Also, if not for the spy Richard Sorge informing Stalin of the fact that Japan would not declare war on him, Stalin might not have raided his Asian forces for the winter 1941 counteroffensive.
 
An American designed the T-34 and tried to pass this concept upon his Americans. We went with the Sherman. This guy went to Russia and they built the tanks with his design. If anybody could further this statement it would be appreciated. I saw this show many years ago and through my excellent memory (ha-ha) I brought this to you.
 
Niteowl, I believe this Wiki page will answer your question, and also will direct you to more data on Mr. Christie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_suspension

An American designed the T-34 and tried to pass this concept upon his Americans. We went with the Sherman. This guy went to Russia and they built the tanks with his design. If anybody could further this statement it would be appreciated. I saw this show many years ago and through my excellent memory (ha-ha) I brought this to you.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT