Buba
A total creep
Yet Cuba and North Korea keep on tormenting their populations ...And blasted system would fall thanks to economy anyway.
Yet Cuba and North Korea keep on tormenting their populations ...And blasted system would fall thanks to economy anyway.
Yet Cuba and North Korea keep on tormenting their populations ...
So yes,soviets planned attack in 1941,and german backstabbed their allies first.Good for Europe,or not? after genociding 20% of western european,those who survive would not praise commies anymore.
And blasted system would fall thanks to economy anyway
1941 and 1943 were quite different given that fighting was much more concentrated and less intense in 1943 than 1941. Krivosheev's figures are far too low for casualties due to the reporting breakdown; 1941 saw worse Soviet losses overall, but especially in terms of permanent losses to the military given MIA/PoWs. Not only that, but in 1941 the Germans were attacking, which is generally more costly than defending especially if the defenders has prepared defensive positions. Plus the rapid advance made it easier for the defending Soviets to counterattack, which they did heavily in 1941, as well as break out of pockets and overrun German units, which were strung out after massive advanced (leaky pockets). 1941 was much messier than 1943 in terms of how organized the lines were; there were few organized front lines in 1941, just a bunch of intermixed maneuvering units, which creates all sorts of problems and makes it easier for an defending to gain local advantages, especially given the number of operational mistakes field commanders made throughout the year. Even Manstein's corps very nearly suffered a disaster when approaching Leningrad in July. Contrast that with 1943 when the Soviets had crushing advantages, but were still badly smashed up by German counterattacks or their ability to counter Soviet mistakes with their counterattacks (see Prokharovka).Sources and summary below, comparing July-Nov "Tot" for Feldheer+WSS in the East only.
1941:
July: 36.858
August: 41.039
Sept: 29.419
Oct: 24.056
Nov: 17.806
Total: 149.178
1943:
July: 34.874
August: 33.962
Sept: 20.264
Oct: 25.815
Nov:18.609
Total: 133.524
In 1941, RKKA fronts averaged perhaps 3mil per month; in 1943 twice that.
Per Krivosheev's data, RKKA's bloody losses peaked in 3Q '43. His data for 1941 show much lower numbers but probably can't be trusted. So it's hard to get a comparative bloody casualty attrition ratio and the 1941 real stats will probably never be known.
Nonetheless, it's not clear the Germans were killing as many Soviets in 1941 as in 1943 (required to equalize the bloody casualty ratio). '43 Heer had nearly as many men in July '43 as July '41 and in '43 it had much better weapons/ammo/logistics. We'd have to assume that Heer combat effectiveness declined dramatically, which is hard to argue for 1943.
Even if there's a feasible argument that bloody casualty ratios in '41 and '43 were equal, that the '41 RKKA achieved such parity with half the relative force ratio would indicate much higher Soviet combat effectiveness in 1941.
Yep.Sure but it's far from clear the Soviet handicaps weren't worse. They lost probably half of their ammo supply as the depots were overrun, for example, and few of their vehicles had sufficient spare parts.
I used to think so, but I've become less certain that there wasn't an attack coming in July. Albert Weeks in "Stalin's Other War" makes a pretty interesting case that Suvorov might not have been wrong and that Glantz's book was actually quite flawed. It is still up for debate though given the lack of documents made public (I'm sure the archives have been sanitized or at least whatever documents there are are kept strictly secret).Yeah. The Suvorov/Nazi claims of imminent Soviet attack in 1941 are lies but Hitler absolutely would have been fucked had he let the RKKA grow for a few years while he battled the West. Stalin probably could have reached the Rhine or Seine before the Allies could have landed a substantial force in Europe.
100% agree. Stalin apologists. WW2 becomes a lot murkier if you don't twist the facts to make it look like the Soviets were only peace-loving fuzzy bunnies who dindu nuffin' to anyone. Because if they acknowledge Stalin was getting ready to attack at some point and Hitler just preempted him and in fact the invasion was at least partially about heading off a Soviet attack at some point then a some of what happened in the East is actually somewhat morally justified. Note I said SOME, not most, and certainly not the deliberate massacres of innocent civilians. The dirty nature of the way the Soviets fought the war from the very beginning make it somewhat explicable, but not morally justified or acceptable.I'm always amused when people respond to this point by saying "Oh you think Stalin would have attacked Hitler? That's what the Nazis say." It's like, what's your point? Are you saying that it's bad to attack Hitler? So Chamberlain and Daladier were criminals?
Not sure I entirely understand this garble but I'm pretty sure you're deranged.
After WW2,soviet NKWD generals was frightened how send 50% of population there to gulags after winning WW3,so 20% mortality is plausible.French do not lived there long.
Western european praise soviets now - they really need soviet boot to undarstandt reality.50 years of commie hell would help that.And,entire system lacked so long only becouse Wall Street supported it.
Not longer possible in this TL,they would fall even quicker.Or start war and lost it.
Changing from pretty sure to you're definitely deranged. The old wall street-commie alliance... wonder what role you think "rootless cosmopolitans" play in this.
It is pretty well established that Trotsky was getting financing from US banks in NYC. He came back to Russia directly from NYC and despite being arrested by the Canadians they released him on orders from some major authority in London. US and British military intelligence has all sorts of files on the connections. You should read what Churchill himself published articles on about the Bolshevik revolution in 1920.Changing from pretty sure to you're definitely deranged. The old wall street-commie alliance... wonder what role you think "rootless cosmopolitans" play in this.
Historian George F. Kennan noted that Schiff helped finance revolutionary propaganda during the Russo-Japanese war and revolution of 1905,[24] through the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom.
The Jewish Communal Register of New York City stated that "Mr. Schiff has always used his wealth and his influence in the best interests of his people. He financed the enemies of autocratic Russia and used his financial influence to keep Russia from the money markets of the United States."[25]
What is perhaps Schiff's most famous financial action took place during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). Schiff met with Takahashi Korekiyo, deputy governor of the Bank of Japan, in Paris in April 1904. Schiff agreed to extend loans to the Empire of Japan in the amount of $200 million (equivalent to $4.6 billion in 2020[10]), through Kuhn, Loeb & Co.[5] These loans were the first major flotation of Japanese bonds on Wall Street, and provided approximately half the funds needed for Japan's war effort.[11] Schiff made this loan in part because he believed gold was not as important as national effort and desire to win a war and due to the apparent underdog status of Japan at the time-a European empire had not yet been defeated by a non-Western nation, in a modern, full-scale war. It is quite likely Schiff also saw this loan as a means of answering, on behalf of the Jewish people for the anti-Semitic actions of the Russian Empire, specifically the recent Kishinev pogrom in 1903.
However, Schiff's stance changed again upon the Bolsheviks' seizure of power:
"Schiff's gripe against Russia had been its anti-Semitism. At home Schiff had never shown any sympathy for socialism, not even the milder Morris Hillquit variety. Schiff had declared victory for his purposes in Russia after the tsar was toppled in March 1917 and Alexander Kerensky, representing the new provisional government, had declared Jews to be equal citizens. In addition to repeated public statements of support, he used both his personal wealth and the resources of Kuhn Loeb to float large loans to Kerensky's regime. When Lenin and Trotsky seized power for themselves in November 1917, Schiff immediately rejected them, cut off further loans, started funding anti-Bolshevist groups, and even demanded that the Bolsheviks pay back some of the money he'd loaned Kerensky. Schiff also joined a British-backed effort to appeal to fellow Jews in Russia to continue the fight against Germany."[15]
Aschberg had already gained the Soviet leaders' favor, by being one of the main connections in the early years after 1917 in evading the international boycott on gold robbed by the Bolsheviks, which he offered on the Stockholm market after having the bullions melted down and given new markings.[4]
In a U.S. State Department file a Green Cipher message from the U.S. embassy in Christiania (renamed Oslo in 1925), Norway, dated February 21, 1918 it reads: "Am informed that Bolshevik funds are deposited in Nya Banken, Stockholm, Legation Stockholm advised. Schmedeman".[5]
Be very careful about Antony Sutton's work. Though he's not wrong about everything he leans too much into conspiracy theory and claims more than his sources support.That aside - Anthony Sutton proved,that Wall Street financed soviets.Possible,when they look relatively harmless to USA.When they take Western Europe and send 50% of populations to gulags,that would change.
Without USA support,soviet economy would fall.That,or lost war.After all,in OTL they yeld after Reagan prevent supporting them for 5 years.
It is pretty well established that Trotsky was getting financing from US banks in NYC. He came back to Russia directly from NYC and despite being arrested by the Canadians they released him on orders from some major authority in London. US and British military intelligence has all sorts of files on the connections. You should read what Churchill himself published articles on about the Bolshevik revolution in 1920.
Though this author dismisses it as anti-semitism he cites a bunch of declassified reports about the Revolution in Russia from US intelligence services including some about the Wall Street-Bolshevik connection:
This guy was the major conduit of money until November 1917:
Jacob Schiff - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Now to be clear Schiff wanted the Czar gone for his anti-semitic actions against Russia's Jews, not to put the Bolsheviks int0 power. He cut them off when the November revolution happened, because he supported the provisional government and thought it would lead to a modern republic, not a dictatorship.
However other financiers had different opinions, seeing profit potential in the Revolution once it was internationally sanctioned:
Olof Aschberg - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Be very careful about Antony Sutton's work. Though he's not wrong about everything he leans too much into conspiracy theory and claims more than his sources support.
Yeah the Skull and Bones thing is way overblown. It is just a fraternity of a bunch of rich kids that go to the same school, not some secret plot to dominate the country or the world. Rich people just hang out with rich people and help their friends out.All true.I do not belive,like Sutton,that cabal from one american university rule USA/Skull&bones/ ,but he proved,that Wall Street helped soviets,even after WW2.
Not for free,of course.They take tsar gold,when it end gold stealed from churches,when it end money from grain taken from dying farmers.And buyed stolen russian art,too.
Yeah the Skull and Bones thing is way overblown. It is just a fraternity of a bunch of rich kids that go to the same school, not some secret plot to dominate the country or the world. Rich people just hang out with rich people and help their friends out.
In the sense of some bankers profiting off of the Soviets, that undoubtedly happened. The US was trading with the Soviets for quite a while but for the early period of the Cold War. IIRC Khruschev is when it restarted. In fact FDR and quite a few business people in the US in the 1930s wanted trade with the Soviets to help the economy, so they ended the embargo on them, as did most European states. Even the Nazis were willing to trade with them.
I really get the impression regarding the early financing of revolutionaries in Russia that it was really just about removing the Czar so more liberals could get into positions of power and modernize the country (and stop Pogroms) as well as being indebted to the US banks so those banks could get rich off of Russian industry and resources. Really no different from how the US operates today via the IMF and World Bank or through the petrodollar. Powerful capitalists are going to capitalist.
Just ask Smedley Butler:
War Is a Racket - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Just like british,who financed anti-royal plots in France after 1780,do not wonted jacobins or Napoleon.
Or germans,after using Lenin,wonted replace him with somebody less bloody - but,sadly,nobody in Russia agreed.They all wonted fight for England.
Althought,it would be logical if Wall Street supported Trocky to destroy russian economy - after Stołypin reforms it could become as strong,or stronger,then USA.Thanks to soviet they remained shithole unable to be USA competition.
Napoleon was Britain's punishment for not stopping France from annexing Corsica like some British politicians back then actually wanted to do:
Corsican Crisis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You should read what Churchill himself published articles on about the Bolshevik revolution in 1920.
Agreed. The degree to which the Soviet regime was propped up by bankers was only insofar as they could profit off of it, much as they did with Hitler and the Japanese in the 1930s. Schiff in particular with Trotsky was doing nothing the Germans themselves didn't do with Lenin. In fact because Schiff was German born and still had some loyalty to the country it is entirely possible he was acting in conjunction with what Germany was doing by getting revolutionaries into Russia to destabilize it. Or did so because it was thought that removing the Czar would help keep Russia in the war by getting smarter people into government...which didn't end up working out so well.There's a fundamental difference between short-term, opportunistic uses of Bolshevists in support of broader agendas (German victory over Russia, hurting the Czar, getting a particular business deal) and long-term propping up of the Communist regime by Wall Street in general (ATP's claim). The former is obvious, the latter has only been articulated as part of a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy.
There's a fundamental difference between short-term, opportunistic uses of Bolshevists in support of broader agendas (German victory over Russia, hurting the Czar, getting a particular business deal) and long-term propping up of the Communist regime by Wall Street in general (ATP's claim). The former is obvious, the latter has only been articulated as part of a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy.
The wrinkle for Germany and a co-belligerent Poland is that Romania would be in the Allied camp so no grain or oil exports from them to help, especially if the Soviets move forces into the country and try to invade Hungary. Depending on how long the war goes that could prove fatal.
If France already falls (except this time in 1939 rather than in 1940), wouldn't Romania still want to join the Axis rather than the Allies? And if the Soviets invade Romania, then it seems like Romania will be asking the Germans and Poles for assistance, no?
I'd call that Common Sense ...Romania do not helped us when soviets attacked
I'd call that Common Sense ...
But besides not declaring war on the Soviets Romania was very helpful.