[Ombrageux]

It was due to the fact of the global depression, harsh reparations by the allies, and high inflation.

2 of the above are, if not exactly caused by capitalism, certainly could only exist within some sort of capitalism.

[The American Lion]

Depression can happen with or without capitalism. USSR was under a depression too.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Precisely.

Communists share everything.
So if there's a depression under communism rule. They lose everything and thus have nothing to share.

[Ombrageux]

USSR was under a depression too.

When? During the Great Depression?

False. The USSR boasted massive growth during this period, while the laissez-faire capitalist world of France, Britain and America shrank hugely.

Communist states have historically not had depressions, although they have indeed had prolonged and chronic economic stagnation.

[starman2003]

The Balkans didn't suck up inordinate resources, and the Reich could have taken the Near East in '41-instead of western Russia- because it was so poorly defended. Stalin was afraid of the Reich and had to tolerate German moves in neighboring Finland, Romania etc, and wouldn't have intitiated hostilities had the Germans moved into the Near East. Rommel wanted to go as far as Basra. The US was then in no position to intervene either, and wouldn't be able for a year by which time it might've been too late. German occupation of the near east could easily have caused a collapse of British rule in India, and the loss of empire probably would've meant the end of Churchill.

US ASW defenses were abysmally weak in early '42, in part because the US didn't think it would be involved in another European war. The happy time did have some measurable effect, like the postponement of certain operations e.g. the North African landings were originally scheduled for August '42. A bigger U-boat fleet might've been decisive; Hoyt wrote that the US almost lost as it was. Btw, the Germans did emphasize guns before butter in the thirties but could avoid sacrifice to some extent until '43 because they only expected a short war and were living off the loot of a continent.

[Smilin' Dave]

The Balkans didn't suck up inordinate resources

How many axis divisions went there instead of the Eastern front? Do you even know the answer?

and the Reich could have taken the Near East in '41-instead of western Russia- because it was so poorly defended.

I seem to remember the Italians getting beaten thoroughly by a British force in the middle east... not a good example of poorly defended if you ask me.

Stalin was afraid of the Reich and had to tolerate German moves in neighboring Finland

You know he invaded Finland right? And forced a peace on them?

Romania

Actually Stalin annexed Bessarabia and Bucovina from Romania right out from under Hitler's nose... it wasn't in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Stalin just took it. Doesn't sound afraid to me.

You also ignore Soviet prodding about its 'sphere of influence', which included Bulgaria. This got forgotten fairly quickly (the war having started and all), but it was a source of tension at the time.

Oh oh, and Stalin beat the tar out of an Axis partner (Japan) in 1939... clearly he was so afraid of Hitler and his regional allies that he... made war on them?

Rommel wanted to go as far as Basra.

Rommel also didn't understand strategy (note for example how easily he gave up good airfields in Italy... which the allies used for their heavy bombers). Rommel was good, but he wasn't god. I mean he wanted to go to Alexandria too... and outran his own supplies (again).

The US was then in no position to intervene either, and wouldn't be able for a year by which time it might've been too late.

Still would have been earlier than historically happened. As for 'too late', only if we accept your skewed view of history.

German occupation of the near east could easily have caused a collapse of British rule in India

Why? If anything it frees up British troops to police India.

The happy time did have some measurable effect, like the postponement of certain operations e.g. the North African landings were originally scheduled for August '42.

Since the Torch landings were originally written as an emergency plan for a collapse in Africa, that date is misleading.

D Day was originally set for 1943 too... then they redid the plans, because they sucked.

A bigger U-boat fleet might've been decisive; Hoyt wrote that the US almost lost as it was.

Yes, you already mentioned Hoyt.

I also already pointed out an error with the 'more is better' argument.

Here's a thought for you. Did Germany have the facilities to make that many U-boats (you don't build those in standard docks)? How about enough crews/training centres? Bases to operate from? Would the smaller boats Raider asked for (the most realistic plan for more u-boats) have had the range to reach the US? Would the army have stood for all this extra funding going to the Navy?

Btw, the Germans did emphasize guns before butter in the thirties

Interestingly, the shortage of foreign exchange to buy all that butter impeded imports for the war industries (need to buy all those alloys and lot of raw materials outside Germany...)... so butter actually stuffed up the guns.

because they only expected a short war and were living off the loot of a continent.

I have long pointed out that their planning was incompentant, this just proves it. War will be over by Christmas right?;)

[The American Lion]

False. The USSR boasted massive growth during this period, while the laissez-faire capitalist world of France, Britain and America shrank hugely.

Thats because Stalin sent alot of people to gulags and forced people into work camps for his 5 year plan.

[starman2003]

The Italians were incompetent compared to the Germans, and there's no doubt that the Reich could've taken the Near East had that been the main target in '41 instead of Russia. And had there been no Russian front, the Germans probably could've held their conquests even against the US. Assuming of course the war lasted long enough after a near east collapse for the US to intervene fully. Loss of the near east would've created the impression the British empire was finished, which might've caused widespread mutiny and rebellion in India which the Axis could've exploited. Churchill might've been finished and Britain could've sued for peace, especially if this had happened before the US entered the war. Btw, if the Reich had taken the near east, that might've provided an alternate source of oil for Japan, causing it to at least postpone its entry into the war, hence the US entry.

Doenitz certainly believed more U-boats would've been better! In the 1930s some German naval men called for less construction of surface ships and more U-boats but they weren't heeded. Had U-boats been emphasized over surface ships there would've been no overall increase in the resources or manpower needed. The Germans obviously had the capacity to build an adaquately large U-boat force since production levels were high by '43, and could've been high BEFORE it was too late. Churchill certainly believed the Germans should've "staked everything" on U-boats. They could've inflicted a terrific slaughter on US shipping early in '42, had they been more numerous. Even some type VIIs made the trip btw. Stalin had no choice but to fight and beat the Japanese at Khalkin Gol because they invaded his territory. But he wouldn't have attacked Germany, or its forces unless they attacked first. Note that Stalin didn't attack in June 1940 even though virtually the whole German army was in the West.

[starman2003]

Concerning Soviet industrial progress in the thirties: the bulk of it was not due to gulag or labor camp workers, which tended to be in remote areas. There was real enthusiasm for industrialization, even though the workers got little then or later, in the sacrificial system.

[Smilin' Dave]

The Italians were incompetent compared to the Germans

It varies. Rommel took the time to praise the Italian army, if not its leadership. They also did remarkably well despite their rather out-dated and poor equipment.

and there's no doubt that the Reich could've taken the Near East had that been the main target in '41 instead of Russia.

I think saying their is no doubt just shows you don't understand the strategic implications of such a strategy. How's this for reasonable doubt: logistics. The ports were not big enough to handle mass shipping and were distant from the desired objectives, except Alexandria, which starts in British hands as a massive naval facility. There is hardly any rail lines or proper roads, so you can't even use those. Further the supply lines will be vulnrable to partisan attacks and raids by the British, which the Near East is highly suitable for.

I can't properly critique it, because you have left it so vague (for example, how you think they will get there). If you really want, you could put together a proposal, but it would be better off in the History sub-forum (Or even History Forum... no one else is there but me anyway...).

And had there been no Russian front, the Germans probably could've held their conquests even against the US.

The odds of Stalin just sitting on his hands forever is most unlikely. As of 1940 he had been talking up an agressive policy for the Red Army, this is often used to prove the 'Suvorov thesis' (eg. Hitler pre-empted Stalin by a matter of weeks), although I wouldn't go that far.

Loss of the near east would've created the impression the British empire was finished, which might've caused widespread mutiny and rebellion in India which the Axis could've exploited.

The Axis tried to exploit the Iraqi uprisings, and failed. India is further away and less sympathetic I suspect. If anything, Japan would be most likely to sponsor an uprising. Germany might have been detered from an Eastern strategy if only because it would primarily benefit Japan, not themselves.

Keep in mind that there had been armed uprisings in India before, but they never successfully challenged Britain.

Btw, if the Reich had taken the near east, that might've provided an alternate source of oil for Japan, causing it to at least postpone its entry into the war, hence the US entry.

How would Germany ship it there? Wouldn't the Japanese prefer their own source of oil with no strings attached? Wouldn't the US be inclined to pressure the Germans for interfering with its embargo?

Doenitz certainly believed more U-boats would've been better!

Theory and practice are often unrelated.

Had U-boats been emphasized over surface ships there would've been no overall increase in the resources or manpower needed.

Prove this statement. It would have required brand new facilities for a start...

Churchill certainly believed the Germans should've "staked everything" on U-boats.

Churchill also wanted to land in Norway instead of Northern France in 1944... just because a famous person says it doesn't make it a brilliant idea. Churchill's own stint as sea lord in WWI doesn't recommend him as a strategist either.

They could've inflicted a terrific slaughter on US shipping early in '42, had they been more numerous.

But why would they need this if the Near East campaign was such a sure thing?

Even some type VIIs made the trip btw.

Did it require special effort? Like the vaunted submarine cargo ship in WWI?

Stalin had no choice but to fight and beat the Japanese at Khalkin Gol because they invaded his territory.

His troops were just as involved in border incursions as the Japanese. Such things had been going on since the end of the Civil War... so why 1939?

But he wouldn't have attacked Germany, or its forces unless they attacked first. Note that Stalin didn't attack in June 1940 even though virtually the whole German army was in the West.

Germany wasn't threatening his interests (Eastern Europe for example) then either. The annexation of Bessarabia and Bucovnia qualify as attacks in my book (again, unauthorised military occupation of an Axis ally... near their vital oil supply in Ploesti).

Lack of action didn't preclude action later on either.

Oh, and if I might bring this back on topic for a moment: Why would Hitler ignore the Soviet Union since he had been planning to attack it since the publication of Mein Kampf? Once again racial theory spoils everything. Even if your suggested alternative worked, it would not have been a legitimate policy under Nazi Germany.

[starman2003]

Rommel HAD to praise the Italian army to try to improve its morale. Actually he mostly agreed with the Italian soldier who said "Why don't you Germans do the fighting, General, and let us Italians build the roads?' Some Italian units such as the Ariete armored division did well e.g. at el-Gubi late in '41 but generally Italians gave up too easily, often surrendering in droves. The best way to invade the near east would've been to force Turkey to allow the passage of German troops, after the Balkan conquest of spring 1941. Russian military planning re Reich was defensive; see Thunder on the Dneiper. Stalin feared the Wehrmacht and did not want war. I doubt he would've intervened against the Germans unless they had already suffered serious reverses. Again the Germans DID boost U-boat production significantly by '43, proving they did have the capacity to do so and could have done so before it was too late. The near east strategy might've been decisive before the US entered the war but a bigger U-boat fleet could've been the solution had the US still gone to war. Sure, in real life Nazi policy emphasized attacking Russia but the near east strategy would've been better; it was foolish to try to take on Russia before Britain had been finished. I think one German advocatd taking the near east not only to finish Britain but to get Russia "in our power."

[Smilin' Dave]

Rommel HAD to praise the Italian army to try to improve its morale.

Why did he write it in his personal diary then? Do you think the Italian army read those?

The best way to invade the near east would've been to force Turkey to allow the passage of German troops, after the Balkan conquest of spring 1941.

Which Turkey would not have allowed, I have already told you why. I also pointed out that this would cause the Soviets to enter the war.

Russian military planning re Reich was defensive; see Thunder on the Dneiper.

In Soviet field manuals there was maybe 5% of space devoted to defensive tactics, and the rest was how to attack. This state of affairs continued till around 1943. See http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources ... lantz2.asp

Stalin feared the Wehrmacht and did not want war.

The archives have revealed that Stalin had come to the conclusion that war with the Nazis was inevitable. I have also already mentioned the definate shift in his official works, discussing the need to be agressive.

I doubt he would've intervened against the Germans unless they had already suffered serious reverses.

As I have pointed out, the Near East campaign you have outlined is a recipe for disaster or stalemate.

Again the Germans DID boost U-boat production significantly by '43, proving they did have the capacity to do so and could have done so before it was too late.

This still didn't meet the requirements set by members of the German navy. There were not enough and not the smaller designs they wanted. The last point is probably because smaller boats = more facilities to build.

1943 is also not 1933... I suspect U-boat production had increased annually from 1939 onwards at the least.

Sure, in real life Nazi policy emphasized attacking Russia but the near east strategy would've been better

Well, then that is a serious flaw in Nazism right there then.

it was foolish to try to take on Russia before Britain had been finished.

Yet you seem to believe that the British would be a pushover? Why was leaving them intact a threat?

I think one German advocatd taking the near east not only to finish Britain but to get Russia "in our power."

Other Nazi officials wanted to invade Britain too... sure, it was unrealistic, but hey, someone said it right?

[starman2003]

I don't think there's any doubt that Rommel, like nearly everybody else, mostly had a low opinion of the Italian army. His dispositions prior to Alamein reflected distrust of the Italians, and of course he was right. Even though the German forces were distributed to bolster the Italians the latter disintegrated in battle.
The Germans could've coerced Turkey into allowing the passage of German troops, which could've taken the near east with relatively little difficulty given the weakness of British defenses there. Stalin didn't enter the war when the Germans took over territory adjacent to Russia elsewhere, and the near east wasn't his turf but Britain's. He didn't need the near east. And there's no doubt that Russian planning against the Reich was defensive. Again, if Stalin had wanted to attack the Reich, June 1940 was his big chance. War games conducted before the German attack convinced Stalin that the Germans could be stopped before they reached Moscow. The Germans were far better at mobile warfare, and that forced a defensive strategy on the Russians, at least until the Germans were worn down.

German U-boat requirements were still short by 1943 because of losses to then, which would've been lighter, at least against the US, had a big sub fleet been available sooner. The Type VIIs btw, were produced in the greatest numbers. IIRC Doenitz said that he could've won in the first happy time with twice the small fleet he then had.

Leaving Britain intact would've preserved a base against the Reich. If Britain had sued for peace following the loss of empire, the US wouldn't have been able to utilize that base.

[Ombrageux]

Mind you, a Britain which sues for peace, rather than a Britain which is invaded and puppeteered by the Reich, could probably get American troups into Britain subtly until war were to be resumed.

Whether or not America would have the stomach for war in Europe if Germany were only attacking the totalitarian Soviets is another question.

[Smilin' Dave]

I don't think there's any doubt that Rommel

Read the Rommel Diaries, then your total lack of doubt will evaporate.

His dispositions prior to Alamein reflected distrust of the Italians, and of course he was right.

He probably kept in mind that their equipment was incredibly out of date by 1942, just as the flanks at Stalingrad were held by Italian, Hungarian and Romanian units.

Even though the German forces were distributed to bolster the Italians the latter disintegrated in battle.

Possibly because the Germans had a habit of packing up and leaving without telling the Italian forces. Alternatively the bolstering effort was not enough to compensate for poor officers and equipment, see again the Stalingrad example.

The Germans could've coerced Turkey into allowing the passage of German troops

I'm all ears as to how they would do this...

Stalin didn't enter the war when the Germans took over territory adjacent to Russia elsewhere

The Nazi Germany didn't go to war when the Soviets occupied territory adjacent to them either... what is your point?

and the near east

Sure, if you completely ignore Soviet ties with the Turkish government and its history in helping their independence movement. Not to mention the whole "occupy half of Iran" thing...

wasn't his turf but Britain's

Also Vichy France (Syria, vital to any plan). Annoying Vichy France will create a thorn in the side of Axis forces. By 1941 they no longer had a fleet to give away, but I'm sure they could think of something to make Hitler's life miserable (free passage for the resistance maybe?).

And there's no doubt that Russian planning against the Reich was defensive.

Did you actually read any of the doubts that I have thrown into your doubtless world? So, repeating for your benefit
1. Noticable shift in official statements.
2. Politburo minutes etc. reveal a Stalin who is convinced a war between the two was inevitable.
3. Soviet doctrine revolving not around defense, but attack (see the link I provided for you).
4. Occupation of an area against all statements of the Molotov-Ribbentrop act which was also within striking range of the Ploesti oilfields.

Again, if Stalin had wanted to attack the Reich, June 1940 was his big chance.

Assuming his forces were ready in 1940, which they were not. I also seem to remember Stalin making a land grab during this time anyway (repeating the names for your convinience, Bessarabia and Bucovnia).

War games conducted before the German attack convinced Stalin that the Germans could be stopped before they reached Moscow.

They also had plans draw up in 1941 by Zhukov and Timoshenko for an attack on the West. Long suspected, proven by the opened archives.

The Germans were far better at mobile warfare, and that forced a defensive strategy on the Russians, at least until the Germans were worn down.

This assumes that the Soviets knew that, which they didn't for sure. Again, the field manual didn't have much space devoted to defense, so the idea of a defensive posture had obviously not occured to anyone.

German U-boat requirements were still short by 1943 because of losses to then, which would've been lighter, at least against the US, had a big sub fleet been available sooner. The Type VIIs btw, were produced in the greatest numbers.

Facinating... doesn't disprove my basic point: There were not the facilities to build such a large fleet before the war had begun.

If Britain had sued for peace following the loss of empire

Even you have admitted the likelyhood of a peace party being formed in 1941 was unlikely. Most British parliamentarians were not that keen on empire, it was one of the reasons Churchill was considered such a pain in the interwar years, he was a relic of the old empire days.

Since your plan stands to upset the Vichy French, perhaps they could give Algeria to the US for basing?

[starman2003]

The main weakness of the Italian army was the poor quality of personnel, and not just the officers. The rank and file gave up too easily. The Turks would've had to give in to German demands to allow the passage of troops given obvious German superiority and the vulnerability of Istanbul. The Reich had already shown it meant business in Yugoslavia and elsewhere. Historically Russia and Turkey were enemies. Iran was occupied only after the Reich attacked Russia. Russia would not have gone to war against Germany unless its own territory was invaded. Of course the Russians were aware of great German tactical and strategic proficiency; the campaigns of 1939-40 had proven that beyond a doubt. Surely you've heard of Stumbling Colossus? Given all the problems the Russians faced, I doubt they were in a position to implement anything but defensive plans. The Russians had taken some steps to improve their security by annexing territory but that doesn't mean they planned to initiate war. The Reich could've taken the near east and a setback of that magnitude could have led to the ouster of Churchill, and peace, before the US entered the war. The Vichy French would've been crushed and occupied if they went too far. Any substantial increase in U-boat strength prior to '42 would've been a disaster for the US, had it entered the war.

[Smilin' Dave]

The main weakness of the Italian army was the poor quality of personnel, and not just the officers. The rank and file gave up too easily.

Good leaders can make up for poor equipment and are vital for the morale of the troops. Just look at the PLA (Chinese Civil War or Korea), heavily outgunned both times, but were able to achive their basic objectives regardless.

The Turks would've had to give in to German demands to allow the passage of troops given obvious German superiority and the vulnerability of Istanbul

All the more reason why they would have called their friends the Soviets in to help out.

The Reich had already shown it meant business in Yugoslavia and elsewhere.

Well actually the Reich invaded Yugoslavia in part because it underwent a revolution. What lesson was Turkey supposed to draw from that apart for 'don't change horses in mid-stream'?

Historically Russia and Turkey were enemies.

I'm getting pretty sick of giving you history lessons, especially since it seems to have no effect on your shield of 'self assurance' (I could use a more choice term here, but I'll try to remain civil). But, one last try.

Eastern Turkey was not entirely under the control of the new Turkish government during the revolution, particularly the parts that had Armenian majorities. Soviet troops stepped in and assisted Turkish troops. So, the modern Turkish state was founded on joint effort between the powers.

When building the USSR, specific exceptions were made, in order to make the Turks happy. It had originally been planned to mash all the Caucasian republics together as one unit, but keeping Muslim and Turkic populations seperate was seen as a necessary item for relations with Turkey.

When Socialism in One Country was drawn up by Stalin, he in part had Kemalist Turkey in mind. He drew favourable comparisons with Turkey's development and political model on numerous occasions (just sift through some of his speechs for around 1926-1927). So, mutual respect.

Finally, there are no examples of Stalin trying his luck with Turkey before WWII. He was quite happy to test his Northern, Eastern and Western borders (as well as playing around in Xinjiang, which is now in China...). Yet he doesn't attack Turkey.

Any paralell you can draw with Imperial Russia would be a waste of time, the Soviet Union was not a true successor state.

Iran was occupied only after the Reich attacked Russia.

Since your playing with alternative timelines, what is to say the Soviets don't accelerate their moves in Iran? It would be in Britain's interests to do it to boot, so why not earlier?

Russia would not have gone to war against Germany unless its own territory was invaded.

Mmm... So when Stalin offered to fight the Germans in Czechoslovakia on behalf of the allies in 1938 he was just protecting his own territory? The only reason the plan fell through was there was no one to support him and the Poles vetoed the movement of Soviet troops.

Of course the Russians were aware of great German tactical and strategic proficiency; the campaigns of 1939-40 had proven that beyond a doubt.

So Soviet military people saw it with their own eyes did they? And the General Staff were competant enough to absorb this lesson? The Soviets would have just dumped all their received wisdom from the Civil War (eg. the best way to stop an offensive is a counter-attack)? The Soviets would have completely believed the press coming out of Britain and Germany?

Surely you've heard of Stumbling Colossus?

Yes, its a text by Glantz... could you be more specific?

Given all the problems the Russians faced, I doubt they were in a position to implement anything but defensive plans

They had been consistantly on the offensive in the late 1930s and early 40s, what makes you think this would change?

The Russians had taken some steps to improve their security by annexing territory but that doesn't mean they planned to initiate war.

What it isn't a sign of is that Stalin was afraid of the German war machine or taking a purely defensive posture. You claimed both these things and they were simply wrong.

The Reich could've taken the near east and a setback of that magnitude could have led to the ouster of Churchill, and peace, before the US entered the war.

My emphasis on could. After Churchill took over the peace elements had been pushed to the outer reaches of political debate, the odds of them coming back were very poor.

The Vichy French would've been crushed and occupied if they went too far.

How do German forces intend to reach Algeria? You have just diverted their strength to the Balkans and possibly Egypt, so no land invasion for you, and their sea lift capacity was terrible (see Operation Sealion or lack there of). Even France itself would be a bit of a stretch with your strategy. France wouldn't even be a convenient resting place for troops at that point.

Any substantial increase in U-boat strength prior to '42 would've been a disaster for the US, had it entered the war.

Since you have failed to suggest how they would expand production enough to achive this, I counter with an equally pointless statement.

If Churchill had UFO technology, Hitler would have been ray-gunned in 1940.

[starman2003]

Good leaders can't make up for troops lacking much motivation, like the Italians. As long as the Reich was supreme in Europe i.e. after June 1940, the Russians wouldn't go to war, except against weaker states; they didn't go to war over Yugoslavia even though they opposed the German attack. Btw the Germans sought to have troops pass through Turkey, not take it over, so it wasn't a matter of life and death for the Turks. In 1938 France and Britain were still in a position to oppose the Reich on the continent, thereby drawing much German strength away from Russia, so intervention would've been less dangerous for the Russians. Obviously that was no longer the case by '41. And it is ridiculous to say that the Russians were unaware of the great power and capabilities of the German military. One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to be that ignorant in 1941. Kruschev wrote that Stalin was as afraid of Hitler as a rabbit faced with a boa constrictor. Again increased U-boat production would've been possible had subs received priority over surface ships in the '30s.

But enough of this! This is way off topic here; this is NOT a history forum!

[Smilin' Dave]

Good leaders can't make up for troops lacking much motivation, like the Italians.

Italian troops didn't have bad morale by default. For example the Folgore and Ariete divisions had average morale. Italian morale primarily fell apart due to poor command which resulted in unnecessary deaths, poor supply etc.

As long as the Reich was supreme in Europe i.e. after June 1940, the Russians wouldn't go to war, except against weaker states; they didn't go to war over Yugoslavia even though they opposed the German attack.

The fact that they couldn't actually get there wasn't an issue at all then? I mean I know you think German troops can teleport around the world, but I know for a fact Soviet troops cannot.

Btw the Germans sought to have troops pass through Turkey, not take it over, so it wasn't a matter of life and death for the Turks.

Yet your reasoning as to why the Turkish government would allow German passage was because of a German military was a threat to then... How about this for another couple of spanners in your plan.
- Why would a nationalist government concerned about Turkish independence, founded at a time when national sovereignty was THE thing to have, allow foreign troops to just wander around in their borders?
- How long do you think the Turks would allow the Germans to maintain such a deal? After all, you need to pass supplies through there, so how do you ensure the Turks will always stay open?

In 1938 France and Britain were still in a position to oppose the Reich on the continent, thereby drawing much German strength away from Russia, so intervention would've been less dangerous for the Russians.

Except that the French and British demonstrated little interest in an alliance with the Soviets and proceeded to cut a deal with Hitler. You also ignored that one of the key impediments was the Polish government blocking access for Soviet troops.

Seems they thought once you let foreign troops bent on conquest into your borders they might not leave...

Obviously that was no longer the case by '41.

In a sense it is. Your plan doesn't surmount the problem of Britain being a thorn in the side of the Reich, and the Near East plan successfully disperses the German military over a massive area, far from their base of supply, even if it works 100%.

And it is ridiculous to say that the Russians were unaware of the great power and capabilities of the German military. One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to be that ignorant in 1941.

Your argument was that the Soviets were completely aware of German tactics and strategy, which is actually quite specific. They knew the German military was a threat, but they had no realistic way of knowing more than that. They were probably also aware that they had a different doctrine to the French and British. It is easy for you to judge, as you have the benefit of hindsight.

Further, your argument does not work even if they did know this, because defence was not the only successful tactic against blitzkrieg. At Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk, the breaking point was an offensive, not the defence.

Kruschev wrote that Stalin was as afraid of Hitler as a rabbit faced with a boa constrictor.

Khruschev had a number of very good reasons to destroy Stalin's reputation, so he is a terrible source of information.

Recent studies (see Montefiore or Service) confirm that Khruschev exaggerated Stalin's reaction to German invasion etc.

Again increased U-boat production would've been possible had subs received priority over surface ships in the '30s.

You haven't proven that, I provided a number of reasons why they are not interchangable production styles.

But enough of this!

If you want to eliminate debate, all you have to do is walk away...

This is way off topic here; this is NOT a history forum!

Which is why I suggest you move this discussion to another forum earlier, which you obviously missed.

You still could start a new topic...

[starman2003]

Italian units with even average morale were the exception. Once the Reich took the near east it could've utilized ports like Latakia, reducing dependence on Turkey somewhat. But the Swedes allowed the passage of German troops and supplies so why not the Turks? Sure they may have prefered no foreign troops passing through but that would've been preferable to Istanbul being pounded like Belgrade. My previous point was that the Soviets were WILLING to go to war against the Reich in '38, regardless of their actual OPPORTUNITY to do so, because the British and French were then in a position to draw much German strength away from the Russians on the continent-and also because the great effectiveness of the Wehrmacht had yet to be demonstrated. Obviously things were far different after June 1940. I very much doubt the Rusians would've initiated a war against Germany. Note they were ready enough to clobber the Japanese at Khailkin Gol in '39, despite the remoteness of the region. They could've attacked in May-June 1940 when they had their big chance. But they didn't. Taking the near east probably would've required at most 30 divisions, leaving 120 for defense against Russia if necessary, in Europe, since Barbarossa involved c 150 divisions. Russian offensives succeeded at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk only after the Germans had been worn down by defenses. As late as March 1943 Manstein still bested the Russians in mobile warfare.

The Germans could've built over 100 Type IX U-boats with the amount of steel etc in the Tirpitz and other big warships, which accomplished so little. That should've been possible had subs and their facilities received priority in the thirties.

From now on, reply in the HISTORY forum.