Comments by "Not Today" (@nottoday3817) on "Early Plans for Operation Barbarossa Before the Invasion of Poland?" video.

  1. @Kaiser Conquests @TIK As usual, there are various reason for big decisions to be made. No one is risking their neck for a small quarrel. If you are in for a long-ish read, here are my top 3-4 (3.5?) and justifications: 1. Two front war with Japan. Hitler wanted to drag USSR into a war on two fronts, so distant and against two differnt enemies which would make progress on one front irrelevant on the other (like what happened to him). This is not a far-fetched ideea considering that even after Okinawa, Japan still had around a million soldiers at the Eastern Border of USSR, so the ability of Japan to wage a war against US and USSR at the same time was not a fantasy. Plus, a war on two fronts would have collapsed USSR much sooner considering they were barely catching a breath in the winter of 1941. 2. US supplies to UK and USSR. US supplied Britain and gave them a pretty big envelope where U-Boats could not hunt or search. As another comment points out, there were also incidents where US ships were harassing U-Boats. At this point, US was 'in the war' with almost everything, but the name. So, why not get it over with and declare proper warfare, at least you might be able to strike closer to ports and open new attack routes. But wasn't Germany afraid of US military might? Well, for this we get to point 3. 3. US had no military might. In 1941 they did not even have a proper fighting tank. The M4 was still in design and testing phases. M3 was a stop-gap and they faced the M3s in Africa, we know how that ended thanks to TIKs crusader video. Military doctrines were also pretty new as the whole upper echelon was replaced by new members (I think it was Marshall who did that?). They had their Navy, but it wasn't that spectacular compared to Japan and Britain. And they were dealing well with the British. Separated between two oceans, I am sure Hitler thought Japan could take on or at least resist against USN in the Pacific and there was no threat from USN against Germany And... 3.5 US was an entire Ocean away. The logistics of trying to support a war in Europe were going to be massive. It might have not occured to Hitler that US could actually be a threat. And, if we look at the European theater in WW2, well..., we cannot say this reasoning was entirely wrong. Before Normandy and Italy, major victories where US participated were in North Africa, a secondary front for Hitler, took on only because Mussolini needed help and it was annoying the British. Then came Italy. And US and UK got bogged down. Hard. After clearing the beaches of Normandy, they got bogged down a little again. And this time they were facing an enemy which was even weaker after Kursk and Kiev and attempts to capture Romania. Soo, yeah. The military ferocity of the US did not really show up in the Europe of our timeline (in the Pacific, there's another story). Had Japan declared war on USSR as Hitler expected, things were sure to have ended slightly to more different
    3
  2. Better sugestion: NOT AROUND GERMANY
    3
  3.  @woongotube  USA did not help USSR in 1939 and 1940. USSR was not even in the war at that point.
    2
  4. At that time the Red Army was weak and not that numerous.
    2
  5. It's not a 'treaty'. It's 'treaties' or relations. There were quite a few. First I think should be the Brest Litovsk of 1918. After Germany capitulated, Soviet Union was still fighting and through 1919 they managed to recover their lost territories to the Germans, since UK and France did not bother to invite the third (and most affected) major power of the original Entente to the Versailles. A peace treaty was signed around the time Germany signed one with US (1920 I believe). Then relations started to warm up as both nations felt cheated by the outcome of WW1 and the Soviets were also hoping for a second communist revolution in Germany (like the one in Bavaria in 1919) Economic ties were formed and a tank school was formed in Kazan (you can google it). Everything fell apart in 1933 as Hitler took power, though, and they fought at least one major proxy war in Spain from 1936 to 1939. (well, more like they fought each other on the land of another state)
    2
  6. he has at least one full video on it, referenced at the start of this one. In short: yes and no. In long: USSR never viewed the Nazis as ultimate military enemies. (Ideologically, a bit, but not as a power). Their biggest concern were France and UK. Their greatest fear was a repetition of the war in 1918, where the nation weakend by war against Germany was now invaded and carved up by it's former 'allies' and to them Hitler served only 2 purposes: in times of peace, a buffer between USSR and the west, swaying away the masses with his 'nationa-socialism' instead of the international communism proposed by USSR; in times of war, they would weaken USSR before France and UK swoop in. Developments in Czechoslovakia in 1938-1939 and the first two weeks of the invasion of Poland I assume pretty much confirmed their fears. As for talks, depends on the context entirely, but yes. USSR DID fight with Hitler in the Spanish Civil War and DID try to stop WW2 through a military alliance with France and Czechoslovakia. After Poland things were calm, before France fell. Then, yes again, Britain, and especially Churchil were urging USSR to invade Germany (Knowing the animosity between the two). And USSR was getting ready to do that, fully expecting a war. But they had no plans to do it in the short term.
    2
  7. Germany was not a threat to the West. The West lost because they were idiots. From politicans (who supported Hitler before 1939) to commanders who brought the mighty French army to rubble in a matter of days
    1
  8.  @piotrd.4850  The 2nd Reich, maybe, but Nazi Germany was indebted over the head to their Western sponsors. Germany and Nazi officials alike. Their economy was also pretty weak considering a lot of it went to war production, which was still not enough to outclass France or Britain. Again. Nazi Germany was not a theat to France and Britain.
    1
  9. Well, you can thank Hitlers Paragons for it.
    1
  10. Too many ifs, brother. Finland was not justified by Poland, but by the fact that Finland was getting cozy with Germany in the pre-war period and their border was uncomfortably close to Leningrad and it was further south (so closer to nowadays Sankt Petersburg) than the excellent defensible positions of Karelia. Romania would have sided with Germany. Ribentrop-Molotov pact is an aspect shoved down our throats by anti-soviet revisionists (don't get me wrong, we need a revision of our history, but not fascist like one) to justify anti-Russian sentiment. However, Romanian-German relations were very warm after 1938, both political and military. Also, in 1940, through the Treaty of Viena, Germany gave Hungary a big chunk of Transilvania (And later the Cadrilater to Bulgaria). Arguably speaking Germany openly took away from Romania as much land as USSR and with much bigger importance. Oh, and after receiving the land, Hungary happily started to slaughter the Romanians. And we were allied with those guys. Fighting on the same front. AS THIS WAS HAPPENING. So, again, the ideea that Rib-Mol Pact was the deceiding factor is overstated propaganda. Played a role? Yes, but the economic relations and promises of riches is what made the final decision
    1
  11.  @yohannbiimu  1. 'Soviets had heavy tanks'. In 1939, not really, by modern conceptions. They had the T-35 and T-28s, but they were heavy due to size and number of turrets. Their protection was inadequate. Well protected tanks started to be introduced in late 1940 and they were still in very limited numbers for Barbarossa. 2. Germans slaugthering the polish army does not mean Poland could not be an allied nation. Romania would be slaughtered by Germany, but they were used as allies. 3. Again, we are not talking about just in 1939 or 1940. That would never happen because Hitler deceided it was not a good ideea for the reasons you and I mentioned: Neither Germany. nor USSR believed they could take on each other and win to fight the war to come
    1
  12. Too many uncertainties and improper moment. Had France and Britain stayed out of it, perhaps. However, they did not. USSR just defeated Japan in their border wars (Khalkin Gol). At the time Japan was considered a military force stronger than USSR, so a new assessment of their military capabilities was necessary (Finland did that for them a bit later). Military capabilities at this point were limited for Germany. Too few men and vehicles for the task at hand. And they did not have their allied states at this point in time (No Romania, Hungary, Finland). France was an uncertain problem. They stayed out of the war so far, but there was no indication they would do so for long. USSR was easy mode according to the Germans. France and Britain on the other hand were the big problem. So they had to deal with them before they could try something funny.
    1