Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Greeks, the greatest Warriors in WWII?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Tharkun said:
Interesting. You could say that the way things turned out, they were partly right.
Although, on second thought, maybe the Germans would attack anyway, British or no British. If they didn't, Italy would face two total defeats, one in Albania by the Greeks, one in Lybia by the Commonwealth.
Click to expand...

Those who have a much better grasp of logistics than I have shown Germany wasn't really ready to move until mid to late June anyway because of transport issues and the Rasputista. After that, Barbarossa was a six week gambit where Russia would surrender or the long siege would begin - and we know the outcome. But the miles on the engines, and the stress on the troops, was hardly worth the propaganda victory to Germany of taking Greece or parachuting down to take the island of Crete. Those troops certainly could have been used better elsewhere, and it just made the coastline Germany had to guard significantly longer with very little in return.
 
There was a chance that Germany could end the war in the east even after the first 6 weeks. I used to believe that the SU would continue fighting even after Moscow fell, but now I am not so sure. In hindsight it's easy to say that the loss of Moscow wouldn't be catastrophic for the soviet war effort, but at that time no one could forsee what the result would be.

Consider that Stalin was getting drunk for two weeks, no where to be found after Barbarossa begun. Also, his behavior when a German recon detachment entered Moscow's suburbs. After, the war amidst celebrations and sober reflection, it's easy to boast "we would continue fighting even after the fall of Moscow".
 
In my opinion the Poles fought the most well. They resisted for 30 days against two huge powers.
You can say that the Greeks fought as heroes, and that is true, but it is one thing to fight against Italy, which with 150,000 troops failed to fight only 35,000 british troops in North Africa. Another thing is to talk about the battle against Germany, in which the Greeks resisted for 20 days.
The Poles faced 2 million Germans and Soviets, being attacked from 2 sides. There was still the Polish resistance that fought bravely against both the Soviets and the Nazis (and against the Ukrainians as well).
 
FighterGA said:
In my opinion the Poles fought the most well. They resisted for 30 days against two huge powers.
Click to expand...

That's... an overstatement. Polish armies were defeated in about 5 days of war, when Germans concluded that campaign succeeded and decided to start to relocate forces to the West while finishing Poland with remaining force. Even allies admitted that Poland was done for 12th September. The remaining time was spent occupying country, with even Soviets not ready to take their "share" so suddenly.

With all respect to Poland, it wasn't a good military record for them. Not humiliating, but far from best.

FighterGA said:
There was still the Polish resistance that fought bravely against both the Soviets and the Nazis (and against the Ukrainians as well).
Click to expand...

Yes, Polish resistance had quite good performance despite all troubles and being split between two factions. Even though Warsaw Uprising failed, it was a display of how committed Poles were for fighting back.
 
Tharkun said:
In hindsight it's easy to say that the loss of Moscow wouldn't be catastrophic for the soviet war effort, but at that time no one could forsee what the result would be.
Click to expand...
How is that easy to say ? We dont know what would have happened if Guderian had walzed into Moscow.
Being the center of politics and the most important Railroad hub no one can say what would have happened.
 
That's what I said. :)
Pure materialstic calculations show that maybe continuing the war was fisible. Losing an important rail hub is a major setback but hardly the final death blow. The Soviets still had enough industry and manpower to continue. The government could theoretically rellocate to Gori. But this thinking ignores psycholgical and political factors. As I said, the Head of State was in hiding for two weeks when the invasion begun and fled in panick when a few arnored cars entered Moscow's suburbs.
My opinion is the SU could continue the war but wouldn't.
But of course after the war the soviet generals could easily shrug off the loss of their capital as unimportant.
 
Tharkun said:
That's what I said. :)
Pure materialstic calculations show that maybe continuing the war was fisible. Losing an important rail hub is a major setback but hardly the final death blow. The Soviets still had enough industry and manpower to continue. The government could theoretically rellocate to Gori. But this thinking ignores psycholgical and political factors. As I said, the Head of State was in hiding for two weeks when the invasion begun and fled in panick when a few arnored cars entered Moscow's suburbs.
My opinion is the SU could continue the war but wouldn't.
But of course after the war the soviet generals could easily shrug off the loss of their capital as unimportant.
Click to expand...
Ah then I misread you.
 
The flip side of the issue is that Germany's demands would most likely have escalated to the absurd, as Hitler's estimation of his own bargaining position improved. A rational leader with sensible goals would probably have pressed for a negotiated peace, taking the Ukraine or some other sizable slice of Soviet territory, then turning his full attention on ending the war in the west. Hitler would have wanted it all, and his gruesome intentions for the conquered areas, as well as the worthlessness of any treaties he would sign, would have all but insured that nobody would accept his demands. Hitler's very existence insured that the war would be a fight to the death.

Stalin was the wild card in the situation, and if he had given up hope, it's possible that he might have accepted some kind of settlement if a reasonable offer were to be made. I just don't think that a reasonable offer would have been made.
 
Kovax said:
Stalin was the wild card in the situation, and if he had given up hope, it's possible that he might have accepted some kind of settlement if a reasonable offer were to be made. I just don't think that a reasonable offer would have been made.
Click to expand...
Stalin was sending out peace fealers to neutral countries throughout the summer of 1941. He was prepared to give up the whole of Ukraine, eastern Poland, the Baltics. Which is another indication of the morale of the Soviet Government and army. And what the two sides thought about the end result of the war at that time.

So, the modern day certainty about the impossibility of a German victory in the east is a deterministic delusion. Everybody in the world thought that the SU was about to collapse, including the soviets.
 
Gordy said:
I think the Finns might disagree.
Click to expand...
Nepalese were. Under threat of invasion from both Germany and Japan, they resisted from 39 until 45!
 
Gordy said:
I think the Finns might disagree.
Click to expand...

If the Finns had been pushed back to Helsinki before they turn the tide and take Moscow, where Stalin shoots himself, then they would get the pole position. :)
 
Stuckenschmidt said:
If the Finns had been pushed back to Helsinki before they turn the tide and take Moscow, where Stalin shoots himself, then they would get the pole position. :)
Click to expand...

A bit tricky when there are only about 5 million of you.

If there had been around 100 million of them, they'd have made it to Vladivostok.
 
Easy-Kill said:
Nepalese were. Under threat of invasion from both Germany and Japan, they resisted from 39 until 45!
Click to expand...

How were the Germans going to get to Nepal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back