• I think you guys are really onto something here. If Germany would have thrown half of their forces for the Russian invasion into Africa/Middle East it would have been a relative cake walk. Not to mention it would give Germany the oil it desperately while at the same time completely demoralizing the English people into a possible surrender. I have read in a couple of books that evidence has been discovered that Stalin was going to attack Hitler the following year. He might have done it sooner if the Germans were getting too close for comfort in the South.


  • @GoSanchez6:

    I have read in a couple of books that evidence has been discovered that Stalin was going to attack Hitler the following year.

    Could you provide a few more details?



  • Stop Giving China Helmets


  • @Imperious:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

    Hmm.  Not very convincing. Stalin’s behaviour in the summer of 1941 is consistent with the idea that he was trying to avoid a war with Germany at that time, not start one.  He kept shipping to Germany (right up until the time of the invasion) all the important resources that were stipulated in the trade agreements between the two countries, and he largely avoided actions on the border that could be seen as provocative by Germany (the occupation of Bessarabia being an exception).  Stalin’s priority was to delay war for as long as possible so that the reforms of the Red Army he had started in the late 30s/early 40s (to correct the damage he himself had inflicted during his purges) could be completed; they were not yet finished in 1941.


  • Stalin was planning for war and directed Zhukov to prepare studies on how to attack Germany. The foreign policy was banking on Germany getting into another war of attrition ala WW1 western front and hoping to exhaust Germany while Stalin rebuilds his armed forces. He would give Hitler anything he wanted so as to avoid any provocation. The problem with that plan is to the dismay of the Soviets, the German army wiped up the French and had the British on her heels in a few short months. This is why Stalin was even more careful not to provoke Hitler.

    However, Stalin did have designs against Germany and the Balkans ( among others things to get a warm water port). Yet Stalin was also pragmatic- If the Molotov/Ribbentrop meetings went well, they might have signed on with Germany to carve out the middle east but Germany and the Soviets would need to agree on spheres of influence over Scandinavia. This Hitler could not accept, nor any claims for more parts of Romania.


  • Yes, similar to all of the ‘Plan colors’ of the US military from the beginning of the 20th century.  The US even had a plan to fight the UK.


  • @rjpeters70:

    The U.S. military has literally hundreds of concept plans and operational plans, and variants thereof.  That in and of itself doesn’t indicate any nefarious intentions.  It’s just what militaries do; they plan.

    Yes, peacetime planning is the strategic equivalent of peacetime training: something you do to keep your people sharp and ready to go at short notice if trouble ever breaks out (which in most cases is something you hope won’t happen in the first place).  Modern war is very complex and requires a lot of detailed planning if you want to get it right, so advance planning (even for wars you don’t anticipate happening) is an enormous time-saver if the real thing ever happens. And I imagine that it might also serve as a useful training and assessment tool for talented officers who show lots of promise as they rise through the ranks: give them the task of devising a plan for a hypothetical war between their country and such-and-such an opponent.


  • Yea just like the Schlieffen Plan, which was just an operational plan or study. Nothing more. Barbarossa was another “study”.

    More like intentions in case of war and not innocently “training”. Comparing the plans of Stalin and those of the United States with the intention of saying these are innocuous “training” missions and nothing more is shallow reasoning. Stalin was just as corrupt as Hitler. He wanted to attack everybody if he had the clear advantage. It is a bit of the thinking Chamberlain had in 1938 and look what happened.


  • @Imperious:

    Yea just like the Schlieffen Plan, which was just an operational plan or study. Nothing more. Barbarossa was another “study”.

    More like intentions in case of war and not innocently “training”. Comparing the plans of Stalin and those of the United States with the intention of saying these are innocuous “training” missions and nothing more is shallow reasoning. Stalin was just as corrupt as Hitler. He wanted to attack everybody if he had the clear advantage. It is a bit of the thinking Chamberlain had in 1938 and look what happened.

    We practiced spying and firing tomahawks at Waikiki on the Submarine.  Isn’t that similar to planning for higher level staff officers?  Practicing their art?

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    @BJCard:

    @Imperious:

    Yea just like the Schlieffen Plan, which was just an operational plan or study. Nothing more. Barbarossa was another “study”.

    More like intentions in case of war and not innocently “training”. Comparing the plans of Stalin and those of the United States with the intention of saying these are innocuous “training” missions and nothing more is shallow reasoning. Stalin was just as corrupt as Hitler. He wanted to attack everybody if he had the clear advantage. It is a bit of the thinking Chamberlain had in 1938 and look what happened.

    We practiced spying and firing tomahawks at Waikiki on the Submarine.  Isn’t that similar to planning for higher level staff officers?  Practicing their art?

    That information is Classified!

    You’re going to end up on Wiki-leaks!!!


  • We have an enormous amount of operational plans (OPLANs) in the United States, and an even larger amount of CONPLANs (contigency plans; plans that are not as detailed as an OPLAN, but gives a general sense of how the United States would prosecute a conflict).  The next level down is a Defense Planning Scenario, which is less detailed than a CONPLAN, and is supposed to get planners, policymakers, and acquisition specialists a chance to think through what kinds of capabilities and strategies might be necessary to prosecute a specific crisis or conflict.  Finally, with the lowest amount of fidelity, is the Integrated Planning Scenario, which incorporates interagency perspectives on a specific crisis, and gives a general sense of what kinds of resources, authorities, and capabilities the interagency (such as DoD, the intel community, Department of Justice, Department of Energy, Homeland Security, etc.) would bring in such a crisis.

    This is what governments do.  They plan for a variety of contigencies, at various levels of fidelity and detail.  Planning helps drive force posture, force structure, disposition.

    You made the same mistake again. Comparing plans from Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR are not the same as modern contingency warfare plans developed by the United States. In one case, despotic and reckless leadership and genocide and the other is a pretty decent country. Hitler’s and Stalin’s plans would be carried out without provocation. They would be allies one year and engaged in a war of extermination the next. Do you see any difference or you just in the modern US policy look because you didn’t study European History 1932-45? The world back then was much different. Stop mentioning US OPLANS and US defense planing scenario’s because they bear no relation to Adolf Hitler or Stalin and why those made plans to attack various nations. There is a HUGE difference. I think even William Shirer mentioned this at some length in his book Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany

    Spelling:  contingencies



  • We practiced spying and firing tomahawks at Waikiki on the Submarine.  Isn’t that similar to planning for higher level staff officers?  Practicing their art?

    Since you keep comparing modern US to 1939 Nazi Germany, how bout this:

    1. North Korea has plans to invade South Korea
    2. USA has plans to invade Mexico

    Which plan has alot more credulity in terms of actually being carried out?

    Hitler and Stalin were always enemies and distrusted each other as much as your mindset formulated the choice for #1


  • You have to come up with way more evidence to show that Stalin was planning to attack the Nazis, other than the existence of an OPLAN, a map, and one guy who is largely dismissed by the academic community.

    Four links not enough? I think no matter what link i will come up with, you will discredit for some reason.

    you keep assuming the differing nature of the regime (in this case, totalitarian vs. democratic) is in and of itself enough to prove that the existence of an OPLAN in a despotic regime equals intent.

    No wrong. that is not what i was saying. The plans of despots carry more weight in terms of them being carried out. The US has contingency plans for developments as a result of actions by other governments, the Despotic regimes in this case are the ones that make active provocations…they start the problem. That is a far different type of plan and these nations have no scruples to employ these plans if any opportunity presents itself by nature of the regime.


  • Come up with some kind of mainstream academic like Gerhard Weinberg, Michael Mandelbaum, John Gaddis, Ned Lebow, Richard Betts, Clay Blair, somebody who understands both WWII and is a respected academic figure, then I’ll listen.

    Sure, Ill get fly them to LAX, pic them up and take them to Malibu and we can have them say whatever. If you were somebody who plans the itinerary of other people, you’d understand that.

    Because you set whatever standard for who is credible or not those you mention are just as credible as however many people think Stalin did have plans to attack Hitler, if the opportunity presented itself. If you knew anything about who Stalin was, you’d understand that.

    “The US has contingency plans for developments as a result of actions by other governments, the Despotic regimes in this case are the ones that make active provocations…they start the problem.” That is a real, real oversimplification–both for what we do in the U.S. and what despotic regimes do.

    But this is a forum where people post short quips on any topic. If you were a poster here for a long time, you’d understand that.

    :-D


  • OK we just reanimated Stalin ( from his tomb) and he said “he was going to attack Hitler”, so i guess that’s solved. If you were a specialist in reanimation, you’d understand that.

    See how that works?


  • I believe the book was called Barbarossa that had the info about the Russia invasion of Germany. I don’t know why you guys see this as a impossibility. Look at what we already know of a Stalin Russia. They attacked Finland and had no problem gobbling part of Poland why is it so hard to believe they would take a shot at Germany? I pretty much thought that would be common knowledge knowing what we know of Stalin. Guess I’m wrong.


  • Lol… so says the guy who claims who went to the “University of Stanford.”  Man, learn something about the academic process and burdens of evidence.

    BTW, I love how you defend a crappy argument by saying “m’eh, that’s the internet, that’s what we do.”  Also interesting to note that you can’t find any real, respected historian or academic who supports your thesis.  Just… webpages.  Guess what?  My nephew has a webpage.  He’s 10.

    For you the burden of evidence is for one person to discount any presented link and replace his own failing evidence to discount the evidence with a list of people who said nothing on the topic and rest on nothing but “it wasn’t seriously considered because i said so”…. Then bring up a typo over and over because you’re quite incapable of making any argument. The typo argument fails again. If you were a professional in faulty reasoning and argument, you’d understand that.


  • BTW, do you think changing a word or two of something I’ve said, and repeating it back to me makes you sound witty or something?  You’ve done it like three or four times.  I don’t get it.  It’s just… lame.

    The mockery of a failing argument is entertainment. Do you constantly need to fall back on what little you know by attempting to force fit it in a discussion of WW2? ( e.g. Modern US contingency plans OPLAN has nothing to do with Stalin’s plans to invade Germany, but because that’s all you know it gets regurgitated here and we all suffer from ignorance).

    Perhaps you might not want to make analogies from talking points in lectures. But that would require knowledge of WW2 rather than modern US Defense protocols, so you head back to the drawing board. And what you ‘don’t get’ backfires because it’s laughable.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 15
  • 27
  • 7
  • 2
  • 27
  • 1
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts