Victory conditions for either

[Michael T]

This is a very pro Glantz forum. Its refreshing to see some other views for once and not being drowned out by the one writer band of brothers [:D]

[76mm]

This is a "pro Glantz" forum because he is one of the few historians (or at least non-Soviet historians) to put serious efforts into looking at Soviet source documents, which hopefully you will recognize as a worthwhile undertaking rather than relying solely on German sources.

Regarding the Bulgarian peace-feelers:

Overy says the following on p96 of Russia's War:

"It was rumoured in Berlin in early October that Stalin had sought an armistice through Tsar Boris of Bulgaria. It [making peace as Lenin had done at Brest-Litovsk in 1918] would not have been an irrational choice, any more than was Lenin's.

The evidence on the peace mission is far from clear. The story that emerged in the 1980s suggested that on October 7 Stalin ordered Beria to send out peace feelers to Hitler via the Bulgarian ambassador to Moscow, Ivan Stamenov. The emissary was instructed to say that Stalin would give Hitler the Baltic States, Moldavia and parts of Belorussia and the Ukraine. According to the story the Bulgarian refused, telling either Beria or Molotov that the Soviet Union would, in the end, win. There is no evidence from the German side of any contacts in 1941. More recent revelations suggest a rather different picture. The attempt to make a peace offer may have been part of a political initiative sponsored by Beria to try to confuse the Germans long enough to form a more solid defence line outside Moscow. This version fits more comfortably with the rest of what is known of Stalin's behaviour in early October- frantic efforts to organize the defence and to recruit American and British assistance and his subsequent decision at the moment of acute crisis to stay in the capital."

The obvious fact is that there are many reasons to put out peace feelers other than the fear that you will collapse if you don't reach a peace. Using peace negotiations to strengthen your military position is presumably as old as war itself. In this case, the Sovs had an additional incentive, which was to use rumours of such negotiations to squeeze more lend-lease and other concessions from the allies.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

This is a "pro Glantz" forum because he is one of the few historians (or at least non-Soviet historians) to put serious efforts into looking at Soviet source documents, which hopefully you will recognize as a worthwhile undertaking rather than relying solely on German sources.

Regarding the Bulgarian peace-feelers:

Overy says the following on p96 of Russia's War:

"It was rumoured in Berlin in early October that Stalin had sought an armistice through Tsar Boris of Bulgaria. It [making peace as Lenin had done at Brest-Litovsk in 1918] would not have been an irrational choice, any more than was Lenin's.

The evidence on the peace mission is far from clear. The story that emerged in the 1980s suggested that on October 7 Stalin ordered Beria to send out peace feelers to Hitler via the Bulgarian ambassador to Moscow, Ivan Stamenov. The emissary was instructed to say that Stalin would give Hitler the Baltic States, Moldavia and parts of Belorussia and the Ukraine. According to the story the Bulgarian refused, telling either Beria or Molotov that the Soviet Union would, in the end, win. There is no evidence from the German side of any contacts in 1941. More recent revelations suggest a rather different picture. The attempt to make a peace offer may have been part of a political initiative sponsored by Beria to try to confuse the Germans long enough to form a more solid defence line outside Moscow. This version fits more comfortably with the rest of what is known of Stalin's behaviour in early October- frantic efforts to organize the defence and to recruit American and British assistance and his subsequent decision at the moment of acute crisis to stay in the capital."

The obvious fact is that there are many reasons to put out peace feelers other than the fear that you will collapse if you don't reach a peace. Using peace negotiations to strengthen your military position is presumably as old as war itself. In this case, the Sovs had an additional incentive, which was to use rumours of such negotiations to squeeze more lend-lease and other concessions from the allies.

That is something along the lines of what I heard, I had heard a guest professor speak on this issue, and say that also from the German side, Hitler knew some of his generals wanted him to make peace(most actually in general opposed the entire war, anyway, to his great chagrin) and so to prevent them from seizing on the opportunity, he ordered there to be no replies and no mention..while the Bulgarian story generally has been that they did not even pass the peace request to the Germans.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

ORIGINAL: rvseydlitz

Your information goes contrary to 99% of historians..perhaps you are correct, but that would be an amazing feat for "mythbusters" to gain knowledge that most people who studied, fought, or otherwise were involved in this war, failed to gain.
The Seydlitz in my name is actually my last name, and I had a relative who fought in this war, and was of some note, so excuse me if I fail to be impressed by an American who is, as most of the posters here, famous for being a Soviet apologist (Glantz)

Are you implying that you are related to the former General der Artillerie von Seydlitz? I sent you a PM, please reply. Thank you.

Yes, he was my great uncle.

No offense at all intended here, as you actually made your post defending me lol...but a couple of things...
My uncle also fought in the Wehrmacht, not so highly ranking as yours, but I did also hear the family stories.
I am sure that you know, being, I presume, still there in Germany, that to many Germans, General v Seydlitz was at least thought himself to be "Pro-Soviet". I do not mean that, at all, badly, except to say this...
Labels, including the labeling of Mr Glantz, are mostly not fair, and usually only tell one side of the story...personally, I know what your great Uncle faced, and I think he got the raw end of the deal, but that is what soldiers in general agree to when we volunteer. I very much disagree with Glantz's work on many areas, but he did put a lot of research into it, so I could never just insult the entire body of someone's life work, no matter how much I disagree with their findings.

[76mm]

Glantz is an uncreative, unimaginative thinker. He mainly regurgitates lists of numbers without questioning them. The only reason for his erstwhile "authority" is that he's an American writer. America, with the largest budgeted military in the world, requires its officer corps to read him.

Ironically, Americans are routinely shown to be one of the most ignorant nations in geography, history, and geopolitics.

I don't know about you, but I get more nervous when a historian is, er, a little too creative and imaginative. I agree that Glantz' stuff is hard to read and not particularly interesting, but he should be applauded just for bringing the facts to light (from a Sov perspective) for English readers; hopefully others can use his data for more interesting analysis. The main thing is that the ability to consider Sov source material can only result in better history rather than relying solely on German or pro-German sources.

To suggest that he is a Sov apologist because he chiefly relies on Sov sources, or that his authority is based upon the fact that the US Army requires reading his works (?!) are rather ridiculous.

And, ironically, fora such as this are routinely shown to exhibit much ignorance regarding geography, history, and geopolitics.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Like an American would know more about a war fought by Germans and Russians. Do you realize that most of those formations were mere shells?

I honestly think there is some kind of mass misinformation campaign going on around here about the German capacity to win the war. Why don't you read some material written by people who actually fought that war.

As far as I know Fritz Todt was not American. Before the Blizzard Massacres (october or november 1941) he informed Hitler that the war (in the east, obviously) "could not be militarily won"...

It's not even a "biased historian", it's a nazi leader and said so just a few months after the attack started! Now that's a defeatist! LOL

It's funny how he wants people to *still* in 2012, rely on old sources. Sources that have every reason to shift the blame for their failure.

"Why don't you read some material written by people who actually fought the war." You mean all the material that is in the now open archives? The stuff that was written..................wait for it.............................. during WW2. Those sources? We *are* reading them. At least those of us who are not blinded by the German "We would of won if...." cavalcade.

Somewhere in my collection, I have Zhukov's book. Yes, that Zhukov. Funny how he doesn't mention Operation Mars.

I know it's difficult for some to wrap their head around it, but the amount of information now is light years ahead of what was available back in the Cold War.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Like an American would know more about a war fought by Germans and Russians. Do you realize that most of those formations were mere shells?

I honestly think there is some kind of mass misinformation campaign going on around here about the German capacity to win the war. Why don't you read some material written by people who actually fought that war.

As far as I know Fritz Todt was not American. Before the Blizzard Massacres (october or november 1941) he informed Hitler that the war (in the east, obviously) "could not be militarily won"...

It's not even a "biased historian", it's a nazi leader and said so just a few months after the attack started! Now that's a defeatist! LOL

It's funny how he wants people to *still* in 2012, rely on old sources. Sources that have every reason to shift the blame for their failure.

"Why don't you read some material written by people who actually fought the war." You mean all the material that is in the now open archives? The stuff that was written..................wait for it.............................. during WW2. Those sources? We *are* reading them. At least those of us who are not blinded by the German "We would of won if...." cavalcade.

Somewhere in my collection, I have Zhukov's book. Yes, that Zhukov. Funny how he doesn't mention Operation Mars.

I know it's difficult for some to wrap their head around it, but the amount of information now is light years ahead of what was available back in the Cold War.

They don't need to rely on sources. They only need to pay attention -once for all- to the German war plan (aka Barbarossa). It is really simple and clear: the war would be over before the winter. That was the war they planned and would be fighting. A gamble, executed by the biggest gambler of all: Adolf Hitler.

The Soviets could have collapsed at some point? Sure. And my grandma rides a Harley Davidson and drinks absynth [:D] If if if if... really, some people are obsessed about the Germans not crushing the Bolsheviks... Relax! The untermenschen not only did not collapse but fought back and finally utterly annihilated the bestial invaders (and then paid them back with more bestiality) [8|] Who would have thought it, eh? [:D]

[mmarquo]

"The Soviets could have collapsed at some point? Sure. And my grandma rides a Harley Davidson and drinks absynth."

I knew it, I just knew it. [:)]

[carlkay58]

Glantz gets quoted by many Americans because he is one of the few sources for Soviet archives in English over here. There are a few others, many of which tend to agree with what Glantz publishes. But most of them are only regurgitating what they find in the Soviet Archives. What we need is someone who takes what is in the Soviet Archives and combines it with what we have from the Axis (primarily German) side. We also have some sources from the Soviets that were published in the 60s, 70s, and 80s in the form of memoirs and interviews. Those tend, much like the German memoirs and interviews, to be a bit more friendly to the subject (such as the convenient lapse of Operation Mars in Zhukov's work) than the archives are. Unfortunately, there are not very many sources left from the Axis Archives, between the bombs, the destruction of records when the enemy approached, and the Allied (both West and East) soldiers themselves trashing and destroying them.

We can see that the German Intelligence for Operation Barbarossa grossly understated the capabilities of the Soviets. We can also see that the Axis High Command did plan for a 'quick' lightning campaign much like Poland and France had been. They were wrong and proven very much so by historical events.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Glantz gets quoted by many Americans because he is one of the few sources for Soviet archives in English over here. There are a few others, many of which tend to agree with what Glantz publishes. But most of them are only regurgitating what they find in the Soviet Archives. What we need is someone who takes what is in the Soviet Archives and combines it with what we have from the Axis (primarily German) side.

Here you go: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/110701 ... d_i=283155

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"The Soviets could have collapsed at some point? Sure. And my grandma rides a Harley Davidson and drinks absynth."

I knew it, I just knew it. [:)]

I will not collapse, no sir! Now, as for not getting to Berlin in time... [:D] I will send the turn later, don't worry (cooking a lasagna with Bolognesa sauce, and it takes time!).

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus




As far as I know Fritz Todt was not American. Before the Blizzard Massacres (october or november 1941) he informed Hitler that the war (in the east, obviously) "could not be militarily won"...

It's not even a "biased historian", it's a nazi leader and said so just a few months after the attack started! Now that's a defeatist! LOL

It's funny how he wants people to *still* in 2012, rely on old sources. Sources that have every reason to shift the blame for their failure.

"Why don't you read some material written by people who actually fought the war." You mean all the material that is in the now open archives? The stuff that was written..................wait for it.............................. during WW2. Those sources? We *are* reading them. At least those of us who are not blinded by the German "We would of won if...." cavalcade.

Somewhere in my collection, I have Zhukov's book. Yes, that Zhukov. Funny how he doesn't mention Operation Mars.

I know it's difficult for some to wrap their head around it, but the amount of information now is light years ahead of what was available back in the Cold War.

They don't need to rely on sources. They only need to pay attention -once for all- to the German war plan (aka Barbarossa). It is really simple and clear: the war would be over before the winter. That was the war they planned and would be fighting. A gamble, executed by the biggest gambler of all: Adolf Hitler.

The Soviets could have collapsed at some point? Sure. And my grandma rides a Harley Davidson and drinks absynth [:D] If if if if... really, some people are obsessed about the Germans not crushing the Bolsheviks... Relax! The untermenschen not only did not collapse but fought back and finally utterly annihilated the bestial invaders (and then paid them back with more bestiality) [8|] Who would have thought it, eh? [:D]

You know TD, I agree with you on many points but here you lose me. The point is not that the Germans could have won the war in the history that we all know. The point is that the Germans could have won the war in the history we make in the game. Which is why, IMO, we like to play games, to see if WE could win IF we do not repeat the historical mistakes. [;)]

I truely believe that the Germans could have won if they would have planned for a 2 year campaign, avoiding the defeat in the first winter. However, I also believe that the Russians could have won, even if the Germans wouldn't repeat the mistakes they made. Confusing? [:'(]

Basically, with the huge benifit of hindsight, the Germans are doomed as history proves. However, I don't play these games to repeat history, I play to make my own on either side. So the real question is: does the game allow either side to win by playing better than your opponent? IMO, it does and that is what makes this a great game. IF you argue that the German player needs to lose each and every time because he lost in history, I find that rather silly and it makes for a boring game.

RE the runaway: if the Russian runs so hard Moscow/Leningrad/Voronezh/Rostov falls by turn 14, it doesn't matter whether the Russian has an army left, his replacement capability will be so impaired he's going to hurt. He's also going to have lost a lot of industry and against a German who knows the value of preparing for blizzard he's in for a rough 42. Likewise, as the historical campaign in 1942 illustrates, huge pockets like those in 1941 need the cooperation of BOTH players/sides. Even in the hay-day of Blitzkrieg, pockets like Kiev or Smolensk, etc... were perfectly avoidable and forcing players to adhere to the folly of the leadership ala Stalin or Hitler would ruin my fun in the game and I would just stop playing. I would bet good money a lot of players would. That doesn't mean I still would like to see some additional "morale" consequences for a Russian who loses too much, compared to history, but I find the game balanced enough to punish a pure sir robinsky big time. Certainly compared to the first versions where manpower as the Russian was so plentiful a runaway was a no brainer.

Anyway, what happened in RL should provide a framework for the game but certainly should never be misused to undermine a good German strategy. And this is what I find your posts aim at. I might be wrong, but perhaps it is useful for you to know how others interpret your posts on this subject. [;)]

[76mm]

IF you argue that the German player needs to lose each and every time because he lost in history, I find that rather silly and it makes for a boring game.

Silly, really? In what is supposed to be a "historical" wargame? I think it would be silly and fantastical if wins except on rare occasions.

Apparently in WitP no one things that Japan could have won the war, or should win the war in the game, and yet many people don't seem to find it silly or boring. And yet in this game lots of people seem to think that Germany should have an even chance to win the war. I really don't get it...

[Aurelian]

Germany could not prepare for a two year campaign as, due to decisions made outside the scope of the game, they never prepared for a long war.

The Germans "don't need to lose." The German players need to get over it and learn to use what they have.

They need to stop trying to saddle the Soviets with Stalin's political mistakes. Way back in 2010, it was stated that both sides would not be saddled with Hitler/Stalin rules.

It is *they* who should plan for a two year campaign instead fo trying to win in 41.

It's a 200+ turn game.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: jaw

The divisions from the Eastern Military Districts started transferring west in September long before the Germans were anywhere near Moscow. The notion that the Siberians showed up in the nick of time to save Moscow is a myth.

Exactly! [:)]

And it was a myth that invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece delayed Barbarossa for several weeks of good weather - the weather that was needed to successfully finish the Russian campaign... [;)]


The German problem was that Soviet union was not France!

The Soviet Union was huge (really really huge) country with numerous and determined population (population who might have hated Stalin and communism - but who loved their country - they fought for Russia and not Stalin - let us not forget that), big army (much much bigger than ever anticipated by any German planners) and huge industry including military one (again much much bigger than ever anticipated by any German planners)!

If the Soviet Union was the size of France the Germans might have succeeded - but it wasn't - the sheer size saved the Soviets (just like it did numerous time in history)!

Same as the British channel saved the Britain in summer of 1940 (just like it did numerous time in history)!



Leo "Apollo11"

[Aurelian]

IIRC, one German general, on seeing that part of the attempt on Moscow included getting to Gorky, exclaimed "This is not the month of May and we are not in France!!"

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

IF you argue that the German player needs to lose each and every time because he lost in history, I find that rather silly and it makes for a boring game.

Silly, really? In what is supposed to be a "historical" wargame? I think it would be silly and fantastical if wins except on rare occasions.

Apparently in WitP no one things that Japan could have won the war, or should win the war in the game, and yet many people don't seem to find it silly or boring. And yet in this game lots of people seem to think that Germany should have an even chance to win the war. I really don't get it...

We are talking about historical plausibility, not a repeat of history each and everytime, not?
We're not talking about WITP, we're talking about WiTE, and perhaps the reason why people disagree is because it was a much closer thing then you and others would want us too believe.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

IIRC, one German general, on seeing that part of the attempt on Moscow included getting to Gorky, exclaimed "This is not the month of May and we are not in France!!"

Quite, but that was November 1941 [;)]

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Germany could not prepare for a two year campaign as, due to decisions made outside the scope of the game, they never prepared for a long war.

The Germans "don't need to lose." The German players need to get over it and learn to use what they have.

They need to stop trying to saddle the Soviets with Stalin's political mistakes. Way back in 2010, it was stated that both sides would not be saddled with Hitler/Stalin rules.

It is *they* who should plan for a two year campaign instead fo trying to win in 41.

It's a 200+ turn game.

There are 2 issues being mixed here.
1. Could Germany have won the war?
2. Could they have done so in 1941 in a knock out blow?

Even if the answer to question 2 is a "NO", that doesn't mean they couldn't have won in '42.

The fact that Germany fought on till 1945 does prove they adapted when a longer war was forced upon them.

Anyway, the question is, if Germany does not make the historical mistakes, could they have won if Russia does make its mistakes? Yes they could. And so they should also in the game.
The next question is, can the Soviets win if they do not make their historical mistakes and Germany doesn't make theirs? And the answer is again yes, they can.

That, in my book, makes for an open game. Demanding that Germany can never win, except on very few occassions, is exactly the wrong attitude and what upsets the German only players. It's an extreme view which has just as little place as those defending muling! [;)]

[TulliusDetritus]

glvaca, as a matter of fact I might not get to Berlin, due to my opponent's excellent play and my own poor play during the summer 1942. And that will be a German victory on my book (no matter what the VPs say) [:)]

So far the Germans (on the game) are less doomed than the Japanese (on the WitP game), believe me [8D]