|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 18, 2024 0:34:55 GMT
ewellholmes, let me just mention three points: 1. We have to avoid linear thinking in AH. Many years ago, I made the mistake to think "Rommel just needed to go 100 km to Alexandria, can't be that hard". But it is, if there are no big harbors east of Tobruq and you have to waste 5 liters of fuel to get 1 liter to El Alamein. Same here with the partisans: In 1941, losses from partisans were indeed low, because they were not ready yet for various reasons: Stalin had purged experienced partisan leaders from the Russian Civil War, they had made no preparations (supply depots, just in case), and of course no experience. But what would happen in the long run? The partisans will become more experienced, the Russians more angry whenever the Germans hurt them, the Germans will be spread even more... I'd bet that the number of killed Wehrmacht soldiers would go up, and up again. 2. No defenses before Moscow?? In fact, behind the Molotov and Stalin lines, I count five: One west of Rzhev/Vyazma/Bryansk; the Kaluga-Kalinin line; three concentric half-circles around Moscow. Improvised trenches and fortifications, but still. 3. I've wondered about an ATL Shoah as well. But the point is: Even before the Wannsee conference, the Einsatzgruppen had started to murder hundreds of thousands of Jews. After the August crisis, the numbers went up further. "Gas wagons" using carbon monoxyde also had been invented in 1941. There wasn't missing much to a full holocaust.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 18, 2024 12:57:23 GMT
a) I'm increasingly concerned about what Sorge can say in April 41 that stops Stalin's OTL actions? After all he can hardly say Japan won't attack you so you don't need to mobilize less forces in the European parts of the USSR. For one thing he wouldn't know whether the Japanese might attack Siberia because the Japanese themselves hadn't decided that yet and the army was pushing for such a move. For another any comment either way on that would have little impact on factors in Europe. Since as I understand it the Japanese were kept in the dark about Operation Barbarossa - just as to their frustration ~20 months earlier about the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact - its unlikely he could give any information on actual German plans for an attack. Which Stalin ignored repeated warnings about anyway. ; indeed, if he ignored the warnings, why did he order a partial mobilization at all in April of 1941 (based on Sorge's intelligence work)? ‘Conventional wisdom’ conveyed to the reading public since the end of World War II maintains that, by virtue of his under-estimation of Adolph Hitler or his basic distrust of intelligence sources, Stalin chose to ignore the warnings he received about the impending German invasion. This includes, in particular, the warnings Zorge dispatched to Moscow. Furthermore, the catastrophic effects Operation Barbarossa had on the Red Army during the first several weeks of war generally validate this judgment. However, as is normally the case in any judgment about the Soviet-German War, new evidence indicates that this judgment may be flawed. Soviet and Russian archival releases since 1990 now indicate that the always suspicious Stalin actually acted on the intelligence he received. While displaying distinct passivity along the Soviet Union’s western border during the last few months before Barbarossa commenced, which has been incomprehensible to most observers, Stalin actually acted far more prudently than thought in the Soviet Union’s deep rear. Out of innate paranoia or outright distrust of Hitler’s intentions, beginning on 26 April 1941, Stalin orchestrated a covert mobilization of Red Army forces. After dispatching one mechanized corps (5th from the Trans-Baikal Military District), two rifle corps (31st and 32nd from the Trans-Baikal Military District and the Far Eastern Front, and two airborne brigades (211th and 212th) from the Far East to the West on 26 April, he dispatched four more divisions to the West on 10 May. Stalin capped this effort on 13 May by ordering four armies (16th, 19th, 21st, and 22nd), with 28 divisions organized into nine rifle corps, to mobilize in their parent military districts (Trans-Baikal, North Caucasus, Volga, and Ural respectively) and assemble along the Western Dvina and Dnepr River by 10 June. There they would constitute a second strategic echelon for the Red Army’s forward fronts in the West.9 This directive also mandated the creation by mid-July of a strategic reserve consisting of 20th, 24th, and 28th Armies formed from divisions stationed in internal military districts. Finally, from 1 to 10 June, the Red Army General Staff conducted a covert BUS [Bol’shoi uchebnyi sbor] — a large-scale training exercise, which amounted to a secret partial mobilization of roughly 800,000 conscripts for assignment to existing Red Army formations. You can play with the numbers as you wish; assuming losses triple to 30,000 a year, it would take until the year 2028 for ATL German losses to rival IOTL losses. Likewise, let's be blunt here: if the Germans genocide vast amounts of the population, how are there partisans to resist the Germans? Except there was no Soviet capability to do such nor any plan. There was just 90,000 troops defending Moscow in lines outside the city in October, with the Soviet government evacuating and the NKVD preparing to demolish infrastructure rather than defend it. What made Stalingrad a bloodbath was two entire Soviet Armies-the 62nd and 64th-retreating inside the city and fortifying it, neither of which was being done for Moscow in 1941. In September of 1941, there are no fortified lines outside the city and even fewer troops on hand; it's possible here the Germans could attack as early as August, with even fewer Soviet forces on hand without the prolonged Battle of Smolensk. Over a long enough timeframe, yes, they will make such advances and the costs for doing so will become increasingly easier and easier. For one, this is because the Germans aren't stupid and did the necessary logistical work even IOTL. Secondly, as the Germans advance deeper into the USSR, they will deprive the rump Soviet state of manpower, industry and resources needed to wage war, thus reducing their ability to resist and thus inflict casualties. There is a reason the Allied advance into Germany in 1945 was much less costly than fighting in prior years. As I said, I suspect the Urals line will take about two million KIA to achieve, about 50% of their OTL rate. This is because by the Spring of 1942, the USSR will be about 40% weaker than OTL, reducing its ability to inflict casualties and sustain its forces compared to OTL. This will compound as the Germans drive deeper as I noted above. I'm not sure; the decision to undertake the Final Solution was not made until 1942 and the reason the Madagascar option was discarded IOTL was because of the inability to actually access it to enact the plan. With peace clearly in sight in 1942, I think it's debatable. Those other groups would likely be targeted as well but I personally think what happens to the Slavs is indeed something is debatable. There was never a concrete decision on that; there were seven different versions of the Ost Plan and there were multiple different power blocs on the matter, rather than monolithic planning. Goebbels and Rosenberg were in favor of better treatment, etc. Personally, I've long thought the costs would lead to Germany setting up independent puppet states or going an assimilationist route. Its a possibility that some will escape during the peace period but where might they find refuge? The only area that might be welcoming could be the British empire with a desire for every pair of hands they can get on, plus for the more conservative minded white[ish] settlers for colonies they might want to control. If details of the ongoing massacres get out then the Us may be more welcoming. Or some could seek to flee eastwards but that would be a very long and dangerous route for many. That's something I've considered. The Uganada Plan could be revived, or any other of the various safe harbors that existed IOTL. The Dominican Republic was extremely welcoming and desirous of Jewish immigration in this era. The 1943 offer was Pre-Barbarossa 1941 borders, while later offers (1944 talks) was 1914. I do agree the talks fell apart due to the differences on this, but the issue here being the issue has been decided on the battlefield, rather than being contested between two equal powers. No, I'm saying the U.S. has two choices on this: A) It can support the colonial peoples and thus alienate the populations of their European homelands. We don't have to speculate on this because this happened exactly in Vichy France in 1940-1941 and nearly brought them to war with the UK then. France and Britain than nearly went to war again in the Summer of 1945 over Syria. B) Maintain the colonial empires in order to keep the exile governments viable, both materially and politically, and thus alienate the colonial populations. The Germans had extensive influence in the Middle East and Latin America historically, so they would be no strangers in taking advantage of this situation in Africa and Asia.
Right, aside from the points Max has raised.
a) So it sounds like while publicly rejecting any attack from Hitler and denouncing any evidence he was quietly taking steps to build up forces in European Russia, both by mobilization of reserves and some movement from Central Asia and Siberia of already existing forces? As such when assorted local commanders ignored reports of attacks that was because they logically after the purges, feared to oppose his public statements and hence were caught largely defenseless in the initial attack. Which then meant that when he ordered counter-attacks with the 2nd line forces they were themselves very badly mauled and pushed back.
In TTL if he just openly ignored all those warnings and also doesn't do secret mobilizations those men and their equipment will be further east and unprepared. As such they will arrive later and fight further east. The Germans will advance a bit faster after the destruction of the frontier forces, except possibly in the south where they were held up for quite a while. Probably not massively so because one of the big issues was mobile forces outrunning their supply lines and then having to hold large pockets - which will be smaller and less in number until the bulk of the army catches up with them. The Germans will advance faster but face greater opposition deeper into Russia. Overall probably gives them an edge, especially if Stalin continues to throw in units piecemeal in poorly organised attacks but could backfire if it prompts assaults on Leningrad and especially Moscow.
b) They will still be substantially larger than OTL at the time of expansion wars at great distance from their core territories being proposed by you. Fighting in rough terrain, facing allied air superiority will not be easy.
Large numbers of Russians will die, far more than OTL. That is pretty much certain. However that also drives more of the survivors into resistance and there are huge amounts of territory where small groups can hide out in forests and marshy areas. Also a mass depopulation of those regions means there's nobody to maintain basic operations there so the Germans are going to have to maintain a lot of infrastructure themselves. They can use sizeable amounts of slave labour for this - and probably will - but will have to guard those slaves against rebellion while their being worked to death.
c) As you yourself pointed out there are substantial resources of manpower that OTL were engaged early on and largely destroyed which will become available during the campaign and I find it hard to accept, especially for those units based or assembled further east will all either still be destroy or not sent to defend a threatened Moscow. Also as Max pointed out there were a hell of a lot of fortifications outside the city before you come to fighting inside the city itself, which is a huge leveler. The sooner the Germans spearheads reach Moscow the more time they have before the autumn mud hits their logistics and front line movement hard but also the more expose those units will be and the more of those later assembled reserves and the OTL rapid mass mobilization of new units will be available for that battle. If the Germans are unlucky they will find a reprieve in the early frost enabling movement to start again before it get really cold and will be ordered to resume the attack regardless of their condition.
One further likely event here is that instead of attacks along the line, dissipating Soviet power there is a more concentrated counter offensive against the primary threat to the Soviet capital and its vital logistical links.
Even if the Germans take Moscow in late 41 they are going to pay a butcher's bill for it, which is likely to be markedly heavier than OTL's 41 losses and which meant the following year they were only able, after substantial effort, to advance on one axis in 42. Would that be east towards the Urals, south towards the Caucasus or would they try and do both, although with the suggested 3rd strike against Turkey or would that wait until 43?
d) No the heavy losses, probably heavier than OTL in 41, will be largely among the more experienced troops and a lot more will be spread wider and wider over the regions they have to garrison. Yes the total strength of Russian resistance is going to go down as more and more are killed and their facilities destroyed, although while L-L is in place and it definitely will be until whatever peace agreement occurs with the US as that's an obvious move. The Germans will win such a attritional conflict but they will lose a lot and tie down more forces doing so. Its likely that they will turn on the Russians in strength after peace with the western powers but the question is how much will they be able to maintain massive pressure on the bear while also making major attacks in other areas? Given the grandiose delusions of Hitler and a number of the leading Nazis along with some of the military I would expect frequently too much will be expected of them.
You yourself are talking about 2M KIA by say the end of 42 in Russia. Which also means at least as many wounded or otherwise handicapped. I think the numbers will be substantially higher and that there will be heavier fighting against the western powers who will generally have more air power and artillery if not troops.
There's another factor as well in that the Russians are likely to learn and seek wherever to preserve their forces, with hit and run attacks against isolated German units and rear positions where possible. Also the LW for instance is likely to be even more overloaded than OTL with forces being worn down against the western allies and other scattered widely in the vastness of Russia and dependent on vulnerable supply lines to keep spares, munitions, fuel and the like reaching them.
Another factor, without a clear defeat in Stalingrad - as no matter the costs if the Germans did take Moscow in 41 it will be presented as a victory, is how easily will Hitler be able to sell to the Germans the idea of total war on the home front?
Germany will probably set up some puppet states, as they did OTL in some areas but they will have little no actual power and that will become increasingly clear as time goes on. They will get support in areas such as the Baltic states and some Muslim areas, such as the Tartars if their not deported eastwards or allowed to return after reached by the Germans and of course by the corrupt but that's about all.
e) As Max points point the Nazis intended the Jews and at least some other groups would die. Whether they expand it further after the available Jews are killed would depend on the circumstances but the level of fighting and the brutality of the occupation policies are going to cause probably tens of millions of deaths. I think that German leaders talked of ~20M Russians/Soviets having to die simply to make available the grain Germany wanted to extort from the USSR, regardless of deaths in combat and no doubt one move to boost production and reduce resistance will be massive use of slave labour.
I was thinking of something like the Uganda project but probably more likely for settlement in areas with a substantial white minority. Probably serving a role as small traders, merchants, handymen and the like. However a lot will depend on how many manage to escape and how willing whatever government is in Britain would be to encourage such settlement. Even if Britain still holds Palestine, which is far from impossible, as OTL they will oppose further Jewish settlement as holding some loyalty among the Muslim populations, especially in front line areas will be even more important.
f) Yes but at what point would Hitler be willing to give the Russians any rump state that is actually independent? As long as he thinks he's winning he will want more. Plus as long as the with the western powers are ongoing the Russians will have hope of recovering the rest of their country and be materially supported so even if he offers something given how one sided his demands would be its unlikely that would be acceptable.
g) Why would the US be bothered about the views of puppet governments in Paris - if Vichy is allowed to return to northern France say - Brussels and the Hague? The bulk of the population will be less bothered about the loss of distant colonies and far more about their own loss of liberty.
|
|
ewellholmes
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 82
Likes: 66
|
Post by ewellholmes on Aug 19, 2024 2:01:55 GMT
1. We have to avoid linear thinking in AH. Many years ago, I made the mistake to think "Rommel just needed to go 100 km to Alexandria, can't be that hard". But it is, if there are no big harbors east of Tobruq and you have to waste 5 liters of fuel to get 1 liter to El Alamein. Same here with the partisans: In 1941, losses from partisans were indeed low, because they were not ready yet for various reasons: Stalin had purged experienced partisan leaders from the Russian Civil War, they had made no preparations (supply depots, just in case), and of course no experience. But what would happen in the long run? The partisans will become more experienced, the Russians more angry whenever the Germans hurt them, the Germans will be spread even more... I'd bet that the number of killed Wehrmacht soldiers would go up, and up again. Equally, increased partisan operations in the later phases of the War were directly orchestrated by Moscow via sending RKKA formations into the rear, supplying arms and coordinating their efforts; things that won't exist here. Equally, with the Soviet state itself defeated and the war clearly turning against the Allies, more collaboration-rather than resistance-is what historically happened in countries occupied by Germany. German occupation policy became less strict as the war went on rather than more hard (See AGC allowing an autonomous Russian statelet in its sectors and AGS directly ordering land reform, etc to win support by 1943). Yet, resistance went up because the prospects for success of such resistance increased; in a situation where the Western Allies are out and the Soviet state defeated, partisans have no chance for success. Furthermore, as I said to Steve: If the Germans genocide the population anyway, who exactly is going to be resisting? Defensive works did not begin construction until September of 1941 IOTL and by October basically consisted of a single line manned by ~100,000 (Possibly as low as 90,000) troops. There were no plans as late as the 15th to directly defend the city via a Stalingrad like situation; rather, the Government was being evacuated and the NKVD was preparing to start demolitions of critical infrastructure to prevent its usage by the Germans. Here, the Germans are advancing on Moscow by late August most likely. There is little in the way of manpower to defend the city and certainly little in the way of defensive works. Soviet Jews are still heavily impacted of course, but the mass extermination of European Jews as a whole reached its heights in 1943-1944, in particular with the targeting of Polish Jews. By that point in the ATL, Germany has reached an agreement with the Western Allies and thus its likely Vichy Madagascar is available. |
|
ewellholmes
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 82
Likes: 66
|
Post by ewellholmes on Aug 19, 2024 3:23:58 GMT
a) So it sounds like while publicly rejecting any attack from Hitler and denouncing any evidence he was quietly taking steps to build up forces in European Russia, both by mobilization of reserves and some movement from Central Asia and Siberia of already existing forces? As such when assorted local commanders ignored reports of attacks that was because they logically after the purges, feared to oppose his public statements and hence were caught largely defenseless in the initial attack. Which then meant that when he ordered counter-attacks with the 2nd line forces they were themselves very badly mauled and pushed back. Except Stalin had already shifted to a publicly aggressive policy before Barbarossa in the Spring of 1941 and already started economic mobilization in late 1940. The RKKA, in accordance with its planning and doctrine, was also already forward deployed by April of 1941; in particular, the VKS forward deployment began with the spree of airbase construction in 1940-1941 in the Baltics, formerly Polish lands, etc. Except it took three months, from April to June, to train and form those reservists into cohesive units and said reservists and their equipment was primarily based in the regions you're presuming the Germans will rapidly occupy. If the Soviets don't call them up until June, it wouldn't be until September they could be sent into the battlefield, by which point even IOTL the Germans were on the brink of taking Leningrad and Kiev. To which is this referring to? There will be effectively no VKS by the Summer of 1942; the Germans will have captured (Or Soviets demolished) their air industry and been cut off from Lend Lease, which supplied the AV Gas necessary for the VKS to even operate historically. The Germans will say thanks; any region survivors can hide in lacks the agriculture needed to keep them fed and there's nothing of value there anyway. Small bands can persist, but their ability to do anything is effectively non-existent given their limited food and lack of industry to keep them supplied with weapons. Historically, Moscow undertook a lot of the effort to arm and train the partisans with forces sent behind the lines, air drops, etc. As for the other things, there was proposals on the part of the Germans to turn Moscow into a giant lake; I don't think they'll care to much to let services fall apart in a fair number of areas. Because said units weren't assembled in the East, they were drawn from the populations in the areas the Germans are advancing over and their weapons either come from depots the Germans take or industry the Germans will overrun. This historically happened OTL to a fair number of the Soviet manpower potential; starting in 1943, the ethnic Russian component of the RKKA began to decline not just as a function of manpower exhaustion, but also because the liberation of territory enabled the Soviets to begin mass conscription among roughly five million men who were stranded behind German lines during the initial onslaught. The same happens here to the vast majority of these reservists. Except there are zero fortifications in the city and the construction of fortified lines outside the city didn't begin until September. The Germans here are in position to advance on the city sometime in August. As I said, the Soviets were preparing to demolish critical infrastructure in the city, rather than stand and fight. The Soviets lack the means or planning to make Moscow a costly battle here, so that won't happen. German ability to advance in 1942 IOTL was hindered by the fact the Soviet Army remained an ongoing threat, whereas here it's at least 40% weaker than OTL since it's manpower and industrial base is significantly smaller at the onset. Case in point, the VKS and Soviet tank production basically will have collapsed as a result of the Germans taking Moscow and linking up with the Finns at the Svir. Lend Lease ceases to exist quite rapidly in this ATL; the Germans will have removed the Northern route via cutting the Murmansk Railway and in 1942 would cut the Southern route. If the Japanese do attack the Soviets, as they planned to do should it look like the Germans were going to win, that removes the Pacific Route and thus the Red Army is completely cut off from outside aid. As I said, I assume two million KIA by 1943, so roughly 50% of their OTL total from 1941-1945. I'm not really sure why we are assuming the Germans will continue to advance beyond the Urals, since there is no plans to do such nor any statements, in public or private, by German officials to do that either. Presuming 60 million Soviets die as a result of this advance and resulting occupation, the Germans can occupy all of the European USSR with about 1 to 1.5 million men, many of whom would be reorganized into settler colonists as the Germans did plan so they could double dip. Generally speaking, the ratio of killed to wounded is about 3:1 in this era, with even the Soviets recovering 80% of their WIA within three months back to active status. Given the better German medical system, the vast majority of their wounded will be recovered by the Summer of 1943. I don't see any further heavy fighting against the Western Allies because the latter planned to sign an armistice in this eventuality and turn their focus onto the Pacific. Except the Russians lack the logistics, production, resources, infrastructure and manpower to do that. There is a reason most insurgencies fail historically, especially against people like the Nazis who are willing to be incredibly brutal to put down such attempts. Not sure why the Luftwaffe would be further tied down here, given the VKS has ceased to exist long before the Germans reach the Urals and they don't exactly need fighters to hold down poorly armed partisans at that point either, for example. The German populace has been under total war for years by this point. The UPA originally declared for the Germans in 1941 and the Germans were able to establish collaborationist governments in the RSFSR itself too if they go that route. If German rule is cemented, collaboration will increase, rather than decrease; this was observed in European states themselves and even into the death camps themselves, given the existence of Capos. I agree Soviet Jews likely die, as do others groups. I am unsure whether European Jews, on the whole, do; most of the killing was in 1944 IOTL, long after the PoD here and in a completely different strategic situation. Assuming most surviving European Jews aren't deported to Madagascar or subject to mass murder, then most will probably go to wherever they can. North America as a whole seems unlikely; outside the United States, 49% of Canadians in OTL late 1940s stated they didn't want more Jewish immigration. Britain itself as a frontline state is also unattractive. So I would imagine most go to places like Uganda, the Dominican Republic, other places in Latin America, etc. IIRC, South Africa wasn't very interested in Jewish immigration, not sure what Rhodesia thought. Either the A-A Line at the least or the Urals line at most. Wehrmacht planning held the A-A Line would render the rump Soviet state as a non-strategic threat, while the Urals was taken as the maximum by Hitler so as to have a fortified mountain line and bring more of the Soviet industry and resource base under German control. In this eventuality the Russians have no hope of ever recovering their territories, they lack the population, resources and industry to ever challenge the Germans again. This was also recognized by the Western Allies, who assumed the loss of the four main cities of the USSR (Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev and Astrakhan IIRC at that last one) would render them incapable of being a further serious impediment to the Germans. The U.S. can certainly disregard the Vichy regime's colonial claims (Or that of other European nations such as Belgium), but the end result of that is the Free French collapse in legitimacy and means of projecting it while also alienating the populace of the French mainland. We don't have to speculate if they would be bothered by this because they were extremely so IOTL; French soldiers at Dakar in 1940-just after their defeat at the hands of Hitler-were documented by the British as screaming "Long Live Hitler", the Vichy air force bombed Gibraltar repeatedly and French collaboration with the German occupation dramatically increased as the colonial war with the British waged on despite most of France being under German occupation. Indeed, most of the French (and other occupied European governments) were predisposed politically to collaboration IOTL anyway, this would just increase the draw of it. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 19, 2024 18:51:58 GMT
1. We have to avoid linear thinking in AH. Many years ago, I made the mistake to think "Rommel just needed to go 100 km to Alexandria, can't be that hard". But it is, if there are no big harbors east of Tobruq and you have to waste 5 liters of fuel to get 1 liter to El Alamein. Same here with the partisans: In 1941, losses from partisans were indeed low, because they were not ready yet for various reasons: Stalin had purged experienced partisan leaders from the Russian Civil War, they had made no preparations (supply depots, just in case), and of course no experience. But what would happen in the long run? The partisans will become more experienced, the Russians more angry whenever the Germans hurt them, the Germans will be spread even more... I'd bet that the number of killed Wehrmacht soldiers would go up, and up again. Equally, increased partisan operations in the later phases of the War were directly orchestrated by Moscow via sending RKKA formations into the rear, supplying arms and coordinating their efforts; things that won't exist here. Equally, with the Soviet state itself defeated and the war clearly turning against the Allies, more collaboration-rather than resistance-is what historically happened in countries occupied by Germany. German occupation policy became less strict as the war went on rather than more hard (See AGC allowing an autonomous Russian statelet in its sectors and AGS directly ordering land reform, etc to win support by 1943). Yet, resistance went up because the prospects for success of such resistance increased; in a situation where the Western Allies are out and the Soviet state defeated, partisans have no chance for success. Furthermore, as I said to Steve: If the Germans genocide the population anyway, who exactly is going to be resisting? Defensive works did not begin construction until September of 1941 IOTL and by October basically consisted of a single line manned by ~100,000 (Possibly as low as 90,000) troops. There were no plans as late as the 15th to directly defend the city via a Stalingrad like situation; rather, the Government was being evacuated and the NKVD was preparing to start demolitions of critical infrastructure to prevent its usage by the Germans. Here, the Germans are advancing on Moscow by late August most likely. There is little in the way of manpower to defend the city and certainly little in the way of defensive works. Soviet Jews are still heavily impacted of course, but the mass extermination of European Jews as a whole reached its heights in 1943-1944, in particular with the targeting of Polish Jews. By that point in the ATL, Germany has reached an agreement with the Western Allies and thus its likely Vichy Madagascar is available.
a) there's a contradiction there as if there are massive numbers of deaths, either through deliberate slaughter or mass starvation then there's no incentive for most people to collaborate. I've already answered the question that given the size and nature of the territory a lot of people will survive, even if the majority die. Who will live in this case will be disproportionately the young and healthy who having seen their family and friends killed are going to be very motivated to do everything they can to hurt the Germans.
b) Every report I've seen mention multiple lines. They were constructed in September OTL because that's when the capital was threatened by advancing Germans. If they arrive earlier, apart from being massively overstretched by their advance the defences are likely to be built earlier. Not to mention its not just defensive lines. Urban areas are a great location for pinning down forces in bitter fighting.
Also since as you say in your reply to me it will take until this sort of period for the forces not mobilized in your suggested PoD to be coming into action in this period so as well as the defensive lines and urban terrain there could be a hell of a lot more troops available.
c) The priority was on Polish and Soviet Jews because they were the majority and also more easily available as Germany was in direct control of the areas they lived in. Getting Jews from the Balkans or western Europe frequently required more effort for smaller returns so was left until later.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 19, 2024 20:10:07 GMT
a) So it sounds like while publicly rejecting any attack from Hitler and denouncing any evidence he was quietly taking steps to build up forces in European Russia, both by mobilization of reserves and some movement from Central Asia and Siberia of already existing forces? As such when assorted local commanders ignored reports of attacks that was because they logically after the purges, feared to oppose his public statements and hence were caught largely defenseless in the initial attack. Which then meant that when he ordered counter-attacks with the 2nd line forces they were themselves very badly mauled and pushed back. Except Stalin had already shifted to a publicly aggressive policy before Barbarossa in the Spring of 1941 and already started economic mobilization in late 1940. The RKKA, in accordance with its planning and doctrine, was also already forward deployed by April of 1941; in particular, the VKS forward deployment began with the spree of airbase construction in 1940-1941 in the Baltics, formerly Polish lands, etc. Except it took three months, from April to June, to train and form those reservists into cohesive units and said reservists and their equipment was primarily based in the regions you're presuming the Germans will rapidly occupy. If the Soviets don't call them up until June, it wouldn't be until September they could be sent into the battlefield, by which point even IOTL the Germans were on the brink of taking Leningrad and Kiev. To which is this referring to? There will be effectively no VKS by the Summer of 1942; the Germans will have captured (Or Soviets demolished) their air industry and been cut off from Lend Lease, which supplied the AV Gas necessary for the VKS to even operate historically. The Germans will say thanks; any region survivors can hide in lacks the agriculture needed to keep them fed and there's nothing of value there anyway. Small bands can persist, but their ability to do anything is effectively non-existent given their limited food and lack of industry to keep them supplied with weapons. Historically, Moscow undertook a lot of the effort to arm and train the partisans with forces sent behind the lines, air drops, etc. As for the other things, there was proposals on the part of the Germans to turn Moscow into a giant lake; I don't think they'll care to much to let services fall apart in a fair number of areas. Because said units weren't assembled in the East, they were drawn from the populations in the areas the Germans are advancing over and their weapons either come from depots the Germans take or industry the Germans will overrun. This historically happened OTL to a fair number of the Soviet manpower potential; starting in 1943, the ethnic Russian component of the RKKA began to decline not just as a function of manpower exhaustion, but also because the liberation of territory enabled the Soviets to begin mass conscription among roughly five million men who were stranded behind German lines during the initial onslaught. The same happens here to the vast majority of these reservists. Except there are zero fortifications in the city and the construction of fortified lines outside the city didn't begin until September. The Germans here are in position to advance on the city sometime in August. As I said, the Soviets were preparing to demolish critical infrastructure in the city, rather than stand and fight. The Soviets lack the means or planning to make Moscow a costly battle here, so that won't happen. German ability to advance in 1942 IOTL was hindered by the fact the Soviet Army remained an ongoing threat, whereas here it's at least 40% weaker than OTL since it's manpower and industrial base is significantly smaller at the onset. Case in point, the VKS and Soviet tank production basically will have collapsed as a result of the Germans taking Moscow and linking up with the Finns at the Svir. Lend Lease ceases to exist quite rapidly in this ATL; the Germans will have removed the Northern route via cutting the Murmansk Railway and in 1942 would cut the Southern route. If the Japanese do attack the Soviets, as they planned to do should it look like the Germans were going to win, that removes the Pacific Route and thus the Red Army is completely cut off from outside aid. As I said, I assume two million KIA by 1943, so roughly 50% of their OTL total from 1941-1945. I'm not really sure why we are assuming the Germans will continue to advance beyond the Urals, since there is no plans to do such nor any statements, in public or private, by German officials to do that either. Presuming 60 million Soviets die as a result of this advance and resulting occupation, the Germans can occupy all of the European USSR with about 1 to 1.5 million men, many of whom would be reorganized into settler colonists as the Germans did plan so they could double dip. Generally speaking, the ratio of killed to wounded is about 3:1 in this era, with even the Soviets recovering 80% of their WIA within three months back to active status. Given the better German medical system, the vast majority of their wounded will be recovered by the Summer of 1943. I don't see any further heavy fighting against the Western Allies because the latter planned to sign an armistice in this eventuality and turn their focus onto the Pacific. Except the Russians lack the logistics, production, resources, infrastructure and manpower to do that. There is a reason most insurgencies fail historically, especially against people like the Nazis who are willing to be incredibly brutal to put down such attempts. Not sure why the Luftwaffe would be further tied down here, given the VKS has ceased to exist long before the Germans reach the Urals and they don't exactly need fighters to hold down poorly armed partisans at that point either, for example. The German populace has been under total war for years by this point. The UPA originally declared for the Germans in 1941 and the Germans were able to establish collaborationist governments in the RSFSR itself too if they go that route. If German rule is cemented, collaboration will increase, rather than decrease; this was observed in European states themselves and even into the death camps themselves, given the existence of Capos. I agree Soviet Jews likely die, as do others groups. I am unsure whether European Jews, on the whole, do; most of the killing was in 1944 IOTL, long after the PoD here and in a completely different strategic situation. Assuming most surviving European Jews aren't deported to Madagascar or subject to mass murder, then most will probably go to wherever they can. North America as a whole seems unlikely; outside the United States, 49% of Canadians in OTL late 1940s stated they didn't want more Jewish immigration. Britain itself as a frontline state is also unattractive. So I would imagine most go to places like Uganda, the Dominican Republic, other places in Latin America, etc. IIRC, South Africa wasn't very interested in Jewish immigration, not sure what Rhodesia thought. Either the A-A Line at the least or the Urals line at most. Wehrmacht planning held the A-A Line would render the rump Soviet state as a non-strategic threat, while the Urals was taken as the maximum by Hitler so as to have a fortified mountain line and bring more of the Soviet industry and resource base under German control. In this eventuality the Russians have no hope of ever recovering their territories, they lack the population, resources and industry to ever challenge the Germans again. This was also recognized by the Western Allies, who assumed the loss of the four main cities of the USSR (Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev and Astrakhan IIRC at that last one) would render them incapable of being a further serious impediment to the Germans. The U.S. can certainly disregard the Vichy regime's colonial claims (Or that of other European nations such as Belgium), but the end result of that is the Free French collapse in legitimacy and means of projecting it while also alienating the populace of the French mainland. We don't have to speculate if they would be bothered by this because they were extremely so IOTL; French soldiers at Dakar in 1940-just after their defeat at the hands of Hitler-were documented by the British as screaming "Long Live Hitler", the Vichy air force bombed Gibraltar repeatedly and French collaboration with the German occupation dramatically increased as the colonial war with the British waged on despite most of France being under German occupation. Indeed, most of the French (and other occupied European governments) were predisposed politically to collaboration IOTL anyway, this would just increase the draw of it.
a) I was trying to understand what you were suggesting would happen. That you say Stalin was taking a more aggressive stance when he wasn't only confuses matters further. Its also distracting from the issue because as I said those forces would still be available in large part for later stages of the initial campaign.
On the arrival of the additional resources that weren't mobilized in TTL what happens in peace-time and war-time are likely to be considerably different.
b) The bit about the Germans facing heavy resistance and an enemy with air superiority was a reference to what the Germans attempting to invade the ME would be facing from the British/Commonwealth and quite possibly American forces in 43 - or in 42 if their trying to advance through Turkey at the same time as driving towards Baku and the Urals - three separate operations of considerable size and requiring advances of a prolonged distance - in the last two cases already operating at a huge distance from their core territories. In the ME advance they would have to operate from the Balkans, which didn't have the greatest infrastructure, through Turkey which even if the Turks aren't opposing the move involves through some very rough territory.
In terms of guerrilla resistance I'm talking about a vast area which includes much if not most of north and central Russia. If your saying the Germans won't need any railways, roads or facilities supporting those links in that entire area to mount attacks further east then I would have to disagree. Between scavenging, small forest plots, hunting and stealing from German dead some people with manage to survive.
c) Your saying that the forces mobilized in April OTL won't exist because the locations they were assembled would be overrun by the Germans before they could be organised. As you quoted:
None of those regions, either for mobilizing already existing forces or assembling entire new armies are in areas that even you expect the Germans to occupy by September 41. As such their deployment to the front while delayed compared to OTL because it starts later, won't be directly affected by the German advance.
On fortifications see my reply to your response to Max.
d) L-L will still be available until at least peace is made via the Siberian and Vladivostok routes. To close the Iranian route they would need to take over northern Iran which looks bloody difficult. They can probably reach the Baku area in 42 but that still leave routes into the central Asia region.
The reason we're assuming that the Germans will advance beyond the Urals, or at least attempt to is because both they need to to end Russian threats to their control of the Urals and because we're talking about a Nazi Germany led by Hitler, who had no concept of anything but total victory.
Most sources I've read are for a 3:1 ratio but that's wounded to deaths not the other way around. Given that the Germans are fighting over a vast area, often way beyond their primary supply sources plus that some wounds will definitely be serious your being very optimistic here about a 80%+ recovery rate. It also avoids the issues of disease, cold and the link which kill/cripple large numbers of soldiers.
While the Russians hold the Urals and points east, as well as the Caucasus regions, which they will until at least say mid 42 they will have a lot of resources and if/when they lose the Urals they will have a huge area beyond that, albeing that much of it is pretty barren.
Total war - not. The Germans were unwilling to the end to employ women in anything other than agricultural roles and also the regime was frightened of civil unrest which had played such a massive role in completing the destruction of the Imperial regime. Hence the emphasis on guns and butter. It was only really as the war turned against them from Stalingrad onward that they started talking of total war. Here your suggesting that they continue to at least appear successful and capture vast new areas before being held so there's not the same incentive here.
e) See my response to your previous post.
f) Have to disagree. The rump Russian state won't be strong enough on its own to challenge German rule over its former heartland - at least until the latter starts to collapse but your still going to have possibly 40-80 million people - depending on how many escape eastwards and how much of central Asia they manage to keep control over. Coupled with the Nazi hatred of Slavs - and communists if the government is still communist - I doubt a real peace while Hitler lives or his successor is of a similar mind-set.
g) When the alternative is allowing those puppets and hence the Nazis to gain control over vast areas of Africa - and I suspect your arguing for the DEI and FIC as well then its an obvious choose for the US.
Some element of the French military were more hostile in response to the attack on the French fleet at Oran but notice that very few opposed Operation Torch a couple of years later and the only real righting was against the US landings in Morocco. There were a couple of small attacks on Gibraltar in 1940 after the Oran attack but of no significant size and that quickly ended.
A lot of French in France collaborated because it seemed the safest way for them, especially while the Axis were winning but they were also aware of the way the Germans were looting the country and that they refused point blank to either sign a peace treaty with France or release any of the French POWs taken in 1940. This last couple of points may well change when peace with the allies occurs but how much they actual change could be more in form rather than fact. However the primary fact is as I mention above its not in the US's interest at all, politically, militarily or economically.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 22, 2024 1:19:14 GMT
ewellholmes, think again. Even if the Soviets have no means to contact them, that doesn't mean that partisans were completely on their own. There are still millions of veterans, they can find ways. As said: Russia's very big, has many places to hide in, the Nazis are hated by pretty much everyone - it'll be like a big Vietnam. And if they genocided the Slavs, they'll have no more slave work either. Hell, even IOTL the "führer" had ordered to destroy e.g. Kharkov after taking it. Which the Wehrmacht didn't like because they needed it as their local HQ! Author/WW2 veteran Heinrich Böll wrote BTW that in Odessa, Wehrmacht soldiers were able to make some extra money by exchanging 100 RM notes for 120 RM in smaller notes. How? The partisans needed big notes to buy e.g. artillery. Apparently, some Wehrmacht guys were that corrupt that they sold their arms to the resistance and claimed it had been lost/destroyed. War is chaos, it might happen... And no, I don't think Nazi Madagascar is likely. They'd also need a strong Kriegsmarine AND at least one side of the straits at Aden to keep up the contact. If they sent the Jews there, many would die off, from the hard living conditions alone. The world wouldn't have a hard time learning about this. "whereas here it's at least 40% weaker than OTL": Where do you get your numbers from? And if the war starts earlier, and the Red Army is able to resist less, they'll logically start earlier building defenses for Moscow, too. They just needed a lot of civilians (incl. women) and shovels, which they had. Better than nothing.
|
|
ewellholmes
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 82
Likes: 66
|
Post by ewellholmes on Aug 22, 2024 20:44:56 GMT
a) there's a contradiction there as if there are massive numbers of deaths, either through deliberate slaughter or mass starvation then there's no incentive for most people to collaborate. I've already answered the question that given the size and nature of the territory a lot of people will survive, even if the majority die. Who will live in this case will be disproportionately the young and healthy who having seen their family and friends killed are going to be very motivated to do everything they can to hurt the Germans. If you're assuming a lot of people are surviving, they're going to need lots of agriculture to sustain them if they are to survive a winter of resisting the Germans. The problem with that is all that agriculture is rather obvious to aerial observation and thus able to be impacted by German efforts; either via cutting the supply of oil and thus things like fertilizers, mechanization, etc and doing direct action like the U.S. planned against Japan IOTL by using chemicals against the crops. Equally, if these people have any desire to hurt the Germans, they're going to need supplies of arms and munitions to do so. Again, something the Germans can see with their own recon assets and react accordingly. Once again, there is a reason insurgencies more often than not fail, and the biggest factor is whether or not they have foreign backers able to help them. IOTL for the partisans, that was the Soviet regime in Moscow which here was removed. There were three lines in place by the start of October and by the middle of the month the Germans had broken through all but one when the rains started. Moscow was under threat by August IOTL, so the fact defensive construction didn't begin until September was a reflection of the immense strain the Soviet system was under. The Germans here are under much better shape than IOTL, given they've avoided the pitched fighting around Smolensk. Once again, there was no Soviet planning to fight in the city and the KNVD was preparing to blow the tunnel system as well as structures that could be fortified as case in point of this. How exactly are you supposed to defend a city if you're destroying the essentials needed to fortify it? Except I also said the vast majority of those forces would be overrun by the German advance as per IOTL, since their mobilization points are the exact areas the Germans are taking before they're even ready. Which would suggest it would be easier to deport them to kill them, given the effort required to get at them in the first place as you suggest here. |
|
ewellholmes
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 82
Likes: 66
|
Post by ewellholmes on Aug 22, 2024 21:03:59 GMT
ewellholmes , think again. Even if the Soviets have no means to contact them, that doesn't mean that partisans were completely on their own. There are still millions of veterans, they can find ways. As said: Russia's very big, has many places to hide in, the Nazis are hated by pretty much everyone - it'll be like a big Vietnam. And if they genocided the Slavs, they'll have no more slave work either. Hell, even IOTL the "führer" had ordered to destroy e.g. Kharkov after taking it. Which the Wehrmacht didn't like because they needed it as their local HQ! This assumes those millions of veterans are not in German death camps or dead on the battlefield, a state of affairs not seen anywhere else in Europe during the time; the defeated French Army was taken into custody for the most part by the Germans for example. Equally, how exactly are those veterans going to feed and arm themselves? Vietnam worked because the U.S. refused to interdict their supply lines, which were sustained by the USSR and the PRC. Even with that political limitation in place, by 1969 80% of the Viet Cong was actually NVA regulars out of uniform; the original partisans had simply been wiped out by the U.S. over the last few years. Given the Wehrmacht and SS are far more brutal than the U.S. Army was in Vietnam, what do you think would happen to any insurgency here? To sustain millions of troops fighting you would need corruption on a scale that would be impossible to hide. A valid point, but if the rest of the world is not wanting them, where else are they going to go? Here.The Germans were at the jump off points for an attack by mid to late August even IOTL. It took until September to get such a program going because to organize such an effort is nothing one can do on the spur of the moment, given the hundreds of thousands of laborers and the logistics to sustain them as well as to organize a competent defensive network. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 22, 2024 21:33:43 GMT
a) there's a contradiction there as if there are massive numbers of deaths, either through deliberate slaughter or mass starvation then there's no incentive for most people to collaborate. I've already answered the question that given the size and nature of the territory a lot of people will survive, even if the majority die. Who will live in this case will be disproportionately the young and healthy who having seen their family and friends killed are going to be very motivated to do everything they can to hurt the Germans. If you're assuming a lot of people are surviving, they're going to need lots of agriculture to sustain them if they are to survive a winter of resisting the Germans. The problem with that is all that agriculture is rather obvious to aerial observation and thus able to be impacted by German efforts; either via cutting the supply of oil and thus things like fertilizers, mechanization, etc and doing direct action like the U.S. planned against Japan IOTL by using chemicals against the crops. Equally, if these people have any desire to hurt the Germans, they're going to need supplies of arms and munitions to do so. Again, something the Germans can see with their own recon assets and react accordingly. Once again, there is a reason insurgencies more often than not fail, and the biggest factor is whether or not they have foreign backers able to help them. IOTL for the partisans, that was the Soviet regime in Moscow which here was removed. There were three lines in place by the start of October and by the middle of the month the Germans had broken through all but one when the rains started. Moscow was under threat by August IOTL, so the fact defensive construction didn't begin until September was a reflection of the immense strain the Soviet system was under. The Germans here are under much better shape than IOTL, given they've avoided the pitched fighting around Smolensk. Once again, there was no Soviet planning to fight in the city and the KNVD was preparing to blow the tunnel system as well as structures that could be fortified as case in point of this. How exactly are you supposed to defend a city if you're destroying the essentials needed to fortify it? Except I also said the vast majority of those forces would be overrun by the German advance as per IOTL, since their mobilization points are the exact areas the Germans are taking before they're even ready. Which would suggest it would be easier to deport them to kill them, given the effort required to get at them in the first place as you suggest here.
a) So your saying the Germans will utterly destroy occupied Russian territories with no people, farms or other infrastructure? If so how are they going to maintain their own forces there or supply the forces your arguing with be advancing towards the A-A line or even the Urals?
If they do allow any population to survive how are they going to manage to control every aspect of the population and the resources they have access to?
Your also assuming that the Luftwaffe, already stretched thin over multiple fronts are going to have hundreds of a/c spending a large amount of time, fuel and other supplies flying over millions of Km2 of forest, marshes and other territory, regardless of the weather.
There are examples from WWII of groups surviving and building up some stocks of equipment from which to try and oppose the Nazis. A classical case is that of the Polish Home Army which was able to rise up and seize most of Warsaw, only to be betrayed by the Soviets. To maintain a level of forces and weapons to have harassment over a vast area of territory is markedly easier. It doesn't take explosives to disable a railway line after all - although that's the easiest way. A few strong men and simple tools can remove a rail or two in a short period of time and the Germans aren't going to have their entire rail network in occupied Russia under constant surveillance.
b) That is assuming that for organizational reasons Stalin wasn't able to organise the population of Moscow to build defences until the Germans were very close and then suddenly had this capacity. Its far more logical that the reason those defences were built as the Germans approached Moscow was that that was when it was decided there was a clear need for then. Which happens a month earlier here.
You said that the Germans would overrun the areas those forces were being organised but gave no such evidence of that and actually gave evidence they would not be anywhere need those areas. The forces won't be set up in the areas in western Russia they were OTL because of the German advance overrunning those areas before that occurred but they would be assembled further east, and given its vital role in the Soviet transport system a lot of them would be assembled in the Moscow area. The German vanguard may have an additional 2-3 weeks of good weather before the mud hits but that faster advance will mean more strain on the men and equipment and also less of the bulk of the army, foot infantry and artillery being available to support them.
As with many things in Soviet 'history' we can't be certain what Stalin would do, as he probably hadn't decided himself. However IIRC he talked to staying OTL and there would be substantial forces in a region very favourable to the defence and also a position very important to both sides.
c) Again your ignoring what was actually said. The vast bulk of the Jews were in the east and that area was under direct German control. There were far less in western Europe and the Balkans and collecting them to be sent east meant interactions with the assorted minor allies or puppet governments. It made perfect sense - if genocide ever makes sense - to collect and kill as many as possible where they are most concentrated.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 22, 2024 21:45:23 GMT
ewellholmes , think again. Even if the Soviets have no means to contact them, that doesn't mean that partisans were completely on their own. There are still millions of veterans, they can find ways. As said: Russia's very big, has many places to hide in, the Nazis are hated by pretty much everyone - it'll be like a big Vietnam. And if they genocided the Slavs, they'll have no more slave work either. Hell, even IOTL the "führer" had ordered to destroy e.g. Kharkov after taking it. Which the Wehrmacht didn't like because they needed it as their local HQ! This assumes those millions of veterans are not in German death camps or dead on the battlefield, a state of affairs not seen anywhere else in Europe during the time; the defeated French Army was taken into custody for the most part by the Germans for example. Equally, how exactly are those veterans going to feed and arm themselves? Vietnam worked because the U.S. refused to interdict their supply lines, which were sustained by the USSR and the PRC. Even with that political limitation in place, by 1969 80% of the Viet Cong was actually NVA regulars out of uniform; the original partisans had simply been wiped out by the U.S. over the last few years. Given the Wehrmacht and SS are far more brutal than the U.S. Army was in Vietnam, what do you think would happen to any insurgency here? To sustain millions of troops fighting you would need corruption on a scale that would be impossible to hide. A valid point, but if the rest of the world is not wanting them, where else are they going to go? Here.The Germans were at the jump off points for an attack by mid to late August even IOTL. It took until September to get such a program going because to organize such an effort is nothing one can do on the spur of the moment, given the hundreds of thousands of laborers and the logistics to sustain them as well as to organize a competent defensive network.
Millions will be in assorted death camps - which was a good definition of most Soviet POW camps but many others as OTL are likely to be outside them, hiding in rough terrain. The Germans who are dashing at full speed towards Moscow and Leningrad - along with presumably other areas aren't going to spent a lot of time
Yes the Nazis are far more brutal than the US and their allies in Vietnam but they also have less resources - in terms of ability to deploy firepower accurately and quickly - and many times as great an area to cover. There will be huge numbers of deaths in brutal repressions but as with the situation in Yugoslavia OTL in WWII people who see most of their family slaughtered are generally not well disposed to the people who do it.
I very much doubt that Max is thinking of millions of guerillas being equipped by such a method. However coupled with scavenging, what aid can get in from outside, stealing from dead Germans and improvisation your going to have some capacity over a large area. How much resources can the Germans commit to trying to hunt them down while also trying to maintain multiple offensives?
The question is not whether anywhere else will accept Jewish refugees but whether the Nazis will allow them to leave.
As pointed out in my previous post this is a dubious conclusion. In a totalitarian society or one under intense external threat - yet alone both - ordering civilians used to hard labour to dig ditches and tank traps with personal tools isn't rocket science.
|
|
ewellholmes
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 82
Likes: 66
|
Post by ewellholmes on Aug 22, 2024 22:45:33 GMT
Millions will be in assorted death camps - which was a good definition of most Soviet POW camps but many others as OTL are likely to be outside them, hiding in rough terrain. The Germans who are dashing at full speed towards Moscow and Leningrad - along with presumably other areas aren't going to spent a lot of time
The follow on infantry will wipe them out, as was the case for basically all encirclement battles in 1941; the tanks cut them off, and then their supporting infantry cleared them out. Small bands can survive in rough terrain I agree, but that also means their ability to do anything hindering to the Germans is effectively zero; they're nowhere near anything important and lack the resources (Such as food!) to sustain themselves. The Germans launched the largest invasion in military history and wiped out millions of RKKA soldiers in pitched battles; the idea they lack the ability "to deploy firepower accurately and quickly" is simply an unsupported claim given the observed historical facts. An insurgency did spring up in Yugoslavia and was sustained because it had Allied support; even with that support, the Germans still made Yugoslavia one of their biggest resources suppliers and found ready collaborators too as shown by Croatia and the Chetniks. So unsteady, small sources of supply. Until Moscow was able to begin massively supporting the partisans in 1943-1944, there was less than 150,000 partisans in the German rear areas despite the Germans occupying over 40% of the total Soviet population. With the Red Army effectively removed as conventional threat over the course of 1942, the ability of the Germans to conduct Anti-Partisan warfare is pretty massive; they did so even IOTL effectively even with a multi-million Red Army fighting them. I don't see why they wouldn't, given they can still take their property on their way out and no longer have to deal with them either way. Nor did I claim it was, but you don't seem to understand that organizing hundreds of thousands of laborers to do work means you need to organize them into effective bodies, keep them fed and equipped, and also teach them how to properly dig trenches and tank traps. For one, most civilians won't know how to build a water resistant, zig-zagging trench that can actually stand up to combat conditions; just building a straight line trench gets everyone in it killed via shrapnel once a shell lands inside it and then it falls apart once the rains start because it fills with mud. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 23, 2024 14:04:14 GMT
Millions will be in assorted death camps - which was a good definition of most Soviet POW camps but many others as OTL are likely to be outside them, hiding in rough terrain. The Germans who are dashing at full speed towards Moscow and Leningrad - along with presumably other areas aren't going to spent a lot of time
The follow on infantry will wipe them out, as was the case for basically all encirclement battles in 1941; the tanks cut them off, and then their supporting infantry cleared them out. Small bands can survive in rough terrain I agree, but that also means their ability to do anything hindering to the Germans is effectively zero; they're nowhere near anything important and lack the resources (Such as food!) to sustain themselves. The Germans launched the largest invasion in military history and wiped out millions of RKKA soldiers in pitched battles; the idea they lack the ability "to deploy firepower accurately and quickly" is simply an unsupported claim given the observed historical facts. An insurgency did spring up in Yugoslavia and was sustained because it had Allied support; even with that support, the Germans still made Yugoslavia one of their biggest resources suppliers and found ready collaborators too as shown by Croatia and the Chetniks. So unsteady, small sources of supply. Until Moscow was able to begin massively supporting the partisans in 1943-1944, there was less than 150,000 partisans in the German rear areas despite the Germans occupying over 40% of the total Soviet population. With the Red Army effectively removed as conventional threat over the course of 1942, the ability of the Germans to conduct Anti-Partisan warfare is pretty massive; they did so even IOTL effectively even with a multi-million Red Army fighting them. I don't see why they wouldn't, given they can still take their property on their way out and no longer have to deal with them either way. Nor did I claim it was, but you don't seem to understand that organizing hundreds of thousands of laborers to do work means you need to organize them into effective bodies, keep them fed and equipped, and also teach them how to properly dig trenches and tank traps. For one, most civilians won't know how to build a water resistant, zig-zagging trench that can actually stand up to combat conditions; just building a straight line trench gets everyone in it killed via shrapnel once a shell lands inside it and then it falls apart once the rains start because it fills with mud.
That sounds very much like the sort of things people who argue that the German invasion of France in 1914 was a practical idea. "Our infantry can march huge distances regardless of supplies and opposition and still be able to operate at full strength after doing so." Your saying that a markedly faster advance by the armour because of the less resistance your assuming will be matched by the infantry units, moving by foot remember, maintaining a similar rapid speed over much longer distances and be able to repeatedly fight battles at the end of each march.
The Germans could generally find large formations, especially when the latter were eager to be found by engaging them, and commit their air and artillery support. However hunting down more dispersed forces seeking to hid in rugged terrain is going to be much more difficult. Similarly for groups engaging or simply detecting such units being able to call in extensive firepower against them as quickly as the US were able to do in Vietnam.
In part Tito and his men survived because of extensive western support but also because of the rough terrain, the relatively limited forces available to hunt them down and the continued recruits the German occupation policies supplied to his forces.
Partisan activity over such a large area is going to be a continued problem, especially when the Germans have the bulk of their remaining forces busy in widely dispersed region from the Urals to somewhere on the northern fringes of the ME and quite possible also in Libya as well as occupation of most of Europe. I don't think anyone will suggest its going to be a war winner but with heavy fighting in say the Caucasus and the A-A line possibly eastwards in 42 any attacks on those massively long supply lines are going to be an issue.
They weren't willing to allow any Jewish groups they could find to escape OTL even when it was clear the war was going against them. Instead they continued to commit forces they could ill afford to hunting them down, extracting them from other countries and transporting them to death camps for the sole purpose of exterminating them.
You give them simple instructions and diagrams and remind them whenever they start going off track. The bulk of the labourers are largely from the immediate urban region and in some cases possibly returning home at night and Moscow has an extensive transport network so supplying them with food and other supplies is going on anyway. Your just moving the stuff a few miles further west than the city itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 24, 2024 2:47:06 GMT
OK, frankly, this thread is getting too far off-topic.
|
|
ewellholmes
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 82
Likes: 66
|
Post by ewellholmes on Aug 24, 2024 4:55:36 GMT
|
|
