• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Should the US (and NATO) Arm Ukraine?

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Well, I think Britain would have sued for peace in the absence of U.S. help. Had the Brits done that, and given some territories to Germany, there wouldn't have been an invasion.

You sure about that?
 
Britain would have been slaughtered if they didn't make a deal, but Germany could never have defeated the Soviet Union. They would have been bogged down for many years until they could no longer economically handle it.

But it was always Hitler's plan to attack the U.S. anyway, and as soon as he did it would have spelled the end of him.
 
I agree with everything else you said, but this seems a stretch to me. Germany had previously defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War, and that didn't result in an aggressive, worldwide German Empire. And even if France had fallen again as a result of Ludendorff's attacks in the spring of 1918, I don't think that leads to the fall of Britain as well. The Brits still had a much stronger fleet than the Germans, and Germany had never shown any inclination to try to conquer Britain as well. Would have been very unpopular in Germany, for one, 'cause they were tired of fighting by 1918 as well.

The most likely result to me would be a German victory with Versailles-like conditions imposed on the defeated French, including the surrender of overseas colonies. Bad, but nothing approaching Hitler bad. Agreed.

1. Well, the conditions of the war were very different insofar in 1871 as the Germans were not interested in overly humiliating France and had no desire for colonies. Bismarck conducted a policy of consolidating the newly formed Empire, isolating France and maintaining the Empire as a saturated power without distractions overseas. Moreover, the cost of the Franco-Prussian War was relatively low for the German powers. It was a quick war with acceptable casualties. As a consequence there isn't intense pressure from the populace for severe conditions of peace. Finally, Germany had no other enemy to fight after the fall of the Second Empire. In 1918 everything is different. The cost of the war would force a much harsher peace and the German government, led by the erratic Wilhelm II and the siamese twins of Hindenburg and Ludendorff would undoubtedly pursue of German domination of all Europe to include Britain in some way. Continuing a war against Britain would require the Germans to fight a global war.

2. I feel that without the Americans to reinforce the already exhausted Allied armies, the Germans by virtue of numerical and tactical superiority (demonstrated in your aforementioned Spring Offensives with the advent of "Hutier tactics") would have eventually battered the French down and taken Paris. The Third Republic wouldn't have survived that loss and the French truly had nothing left to give. One on One the British can't defeat the Germans and they pull a Dunkirk in 1918 or early 1919. Moreover, without the US threatening war, the Germans continue unrestricted submarine warfare, perhaps with better results. A victory over France renews Germany's martial spirit; allowing them to prosecute a war against Britain at a global level.

3. I think invasion of the British Isles is not necessary, though one could make an argument that the combination of the High Seas Fleet and acquired French and Italian ships could give the Germans local superiority in the Channel in order to effect a crossing. But, I think Germany can prosecute a successful war against Britain without invading.

If Germany forces France to yield, one can expect many French colonies to pass under German control, particularly in North Africa, as well as her fleet (or at least a guarantee to close off the Med to the Brits). With troops freed from the Western Front, the Germans reinforce the Austrians and take Italy out of the War. Italy is forced to yield Libya and her fleet and Germany is master of all North Africa. Germany than launches an invasion of Egypt on two fronts with the aid of the Ottomans who, with massive German reinforcement, clears the Levant and Mesopotamia of Allied and Arab forces. Egypt falls. A joint Ottoman and German drive toward India beings. Without the Canal the British will be hard pressed to defend India from a concerted attack. Britain sues for peace and Germany acquires colonies in the Pacific and other places that would inevitably threaten US interests.
 
Britain would have been slaughtered if they didn't make a deal, but Germany could never have defeated the Soviet Union. They would have been bogged down for many years until they could no longer economically handle it.

But it was always Hitler's plan to attack the U.S. anyway, and as soon as he did it would have spelled the end of him.

Without Lend-Lease the Brits fall in 1940 or 1941. No North African campaign means full Italian participation in an invasion of the USSR and the full might of the Wehrmacht brought to bear. Considering the Soviets should have lost in July 1941 (Guderian captures Smolensk in mid-July only 93 miles down the highway from Moscow with no Soviet troops in place, Hitler orders a halt for dubious reasons) and barely survived the last push to Moscow, the additions to the German cause would have been the difference.

Even dismissing that, the Soviets were nearly completely dependent on the US for food, oil, rolling stock and, most importantly, trucks between late-1941 to late 1943 as their agricultural regions were overrun and their industries were still being rebuilt. I bring up the trucks because they are absolutely essential for maneuver warfare and without them the Soviets would not have won at Stalingrad, would not have launched their successful counter-offensives in early 1943 and most certainly would not have won at Kursk. The US also provided many tanks and aircraft that allowed the Soviets to absorb the ENORMOUS material losses they suffered at a time when the Soviets' production was only starting to manufacture meaningful quantities of material. In fact, they never produced as many trucks as we provided (400,000+ to 150,000 built by the USSR). Lend-Lease was all the difference in a very close-fought war 1941-1943.

As for Hitler's intention to invade the US, I don't think there is much evidence to support that contention other then a brief study done by the General Staff in 1942 who found any proceeding to be utterly unrealistic.
 
Nothing like a good "what-if" historical argument, eh?

Moreover, the cost of the Franco-Prussian War was relatively low for the German powers. It was a quick war with acceptable casualties. As a consequence there isn't intense pressure from the populace for severe conditions of peace. Finally, Germany had no other enemy to fight after the fall of the Second Empire. In 1918 everything is different. The cost of the war would force a much harsher peace and the German government, led by the erratic Wilhelm II and the siamese twins of Hindenburg and Ludendorff would undoubtedly pursue of German domination of all Europe to include Britain in some way.

Where I disagree with you is regarding the German desire to push for more war in 1918 if they had managed to defeat France. As you say, the Franco-Prussian War had relatively low German casualties, but WWI was much different, by 1918, both the German Army and German people were exhausted as well. I agree they'd have imposed harsh terms on France, including reparations, but there wasn't any internal German desire for limitless conquest. There were significant anti-war marches in Germany, production was falling rather precipitously, etc.. There was also a lot of concern about restive urban population and the prospect of urban revolution. More war would just make all those pressures worse.

The Germans wanted peace badly even in 1917, but on the condition that they keep all their gains in the East from Brest-Litovsk, as well as the French territories that they had controlled in 1914. The Allies wouldn't agree. Give Germans their victory over France so that they get to keep that, some reparations from the French, and maybe a French colony or two, and they'd have gladly let the Brits sign a separate peace and walk away.

One on One the British can't defeat the Germans and they pull a Dunkirk in 1918 or early 1919.

Yeah, I'd go with early 1918 because I don't think they'd have survived the Spring Offensives. Possible, but unlikely. But there's no reason for Germany to fight Britain after France is defeated anyway.

A victory over France renews Germany's martial spirit; allowing them to prosecute a war against Britain at a global level.

That's the point of disagreement. Germany's martial spirit was pretty much spent by 1918, and a victory over France would have enabled them to come out of that war with major gains in the East, some reparations from France, and probably some French colonies. But the German people were exhausted, and there hadn't even been a German desire for massive conquest before the war. Had the Russians agreed to stop their mobilization, there wouldn't have been a major war.

Italy is forced to yield Libya and her fleet and Germany is master of all North Africa. Germany than launches an invasion of Egypt on two fronts with the aid of the Ottomans who, with massive German reinforcement, clears the Levant and Mesopotamia of Allied and Arab forces. Egypt falls. A joint Ottoman and German drive toward India beings....

This sounds more like the speculative continuation of a wargame that goes past the last turn than a realistic assessment of what the Germans would have done. They'd been bled white already by the war. They had shiny new, very favorable deals for oil with the new Russian government, and Britain was not a historic enemy. And German/Turkish interests diverged. The Ottomans wanted Russian oil fields in the Caucasus for themselves, while the Germans preferred they remain under the control of a defeated, weak Russian government that had offered the Germans very favorable terms. I can't fathom the German people tolerating German troops fighting for in India, of all places.
 
You sure about that?

No, because it's impossible to be "sure" about any alternate history scenario. But all of the belligerents were utterly sick of fighting after four years of fighting, and wanted it to end. They just couldn't agree on terms. Britain would have had zero chance of defeating Germany by itself after both Russia and France are defeated, not to mention that this scenario assumes no prospect of U.S. intervention. Britain not only would have been alone, but alone without any possible allies joining the fight later.

All Britain gets out of continuing that war after France and Russia are both out is...more fighting, and more unrestricted submarine warfare, all without any real prospect of victory.

So yeah, I can't be sure Britain would have made peace, but I think it is the most reasonable assumption. 1918 was not 1940.
 
Britain would have been slaughtered if they didn't make a deal, but Germany could never have defeated the Soviet Union. They would have been bogged down for many years until they could no longer economically handle it.

Absent U.S. Lend-Lease and other aid to Britain, there's a good chance they would have been forced to make peace. A Britain being armed and supplied by the U.S. forced the Germans to keep significant troops in the West even before the U.S. entered the war. Absent that, the Germans wouldhave had even more forces available for invasion. And absent Britain remaining in the war -- including providing assistance to resistance movements -- you might not even have seen the Yugoslavian rebellion on 1941 that delayed the German advance into Russia by six weeks. Absent that, Moscow probably falls in 1941, or alternatively, the Germans manage to grab the oil fields, which essentially would have ended the Soviet ability to fight a modern war.

And the Germans did defeat the Russians in 1917, so the idea that the country is so large that it couldn't be conquered doesn't hold water.
 
Absent U.S. Lend-Lease and other aid to Britain, there's a good chance they would have been forced to make peace. A Britain being armed and supplied by the U.S. forced the Germans to keep significant troops in the West even before the U.S. entered the war. Absent that, the Germans wouldhave had even more forces available for invasion. And absent Britain remaining in the war -- including providing assistance to resistance movements -- you might not even have seen the Yugoslavian rebellion on 1941 that delayed the German advance into Russia by six weeks. Absent that, Moscow probably falls in 1941, or alternatively, the Germans manage to grab the oil fields, which essentially would have ended the Soviet ability to fight a modern war.

And the Germans did defeat the Russians in 1917, so the idea that the country is so large that it couldn't be conquered doesn't hold water.

The Russians would never surrender if the Germans held the whole western part of the country up through Moscow. If nothing else it would have become a guerrilla war, which we of all people should know by now, can't be won by the occupier.

And the Germans "defeated" Russia in 1917, but they didn't conquer anything. The Russians withdrew to fight their own revolution.
 
The Russians would never surrender if the Germans held the whole western part of the country up through Moscow. If nothing else it would have become a guerrilla war, which we of all people should know by now, can't be won by the occupier.

And the Germans "defeated" Russia in 1917, but they didn't conquer anything. The Russians withdrew to fight their own revolution.

Hitler's plan was to push to the Urals. At that point any meaningful ability for the Soviets to resist would have been ended.

Guerrilla Wars have been won by occupying forces many times. In fact, Russia's imperial conquests in the Caucuses and Central Asia demonstrate that if you are brutal enough, and willing to commit wholesale slaughter, you can pacify large tracts within a decade or two.

The Nazis were not shy when it came to killing.
 
Nothing like a good "what-if" historical argument, eh?



Where I disagree with you is regarding the German desire to push for more war in 1918 if they had managed to defeat France. As you say, the Franco-Prussian War had relatively low German casualties, but WWI was much different, by 1918, both the German Army and German people were exhausted as well. I agree they'd have imposed harsh terms on France, including reparations, but there wasn't any internal German desire for limitless conquest. There were significant anti-war marches in Germany, production was falling rather precipitously, etc.. There was also a lot of concern about restive urban population and the prospect of urban revolution. More war would just make all those pressures worse.

The Germans wanted peace badly even in 1917, but on the condition that they keep all their gains in the East from Brest-Litovsk, as well as the French territories that they had controlled in 1914. The Allies wouldn't agree. Give Germans their victory over France so that they get to keep that, some reparations from the French, and maybe a French colony or two, and they'd have gladly let the Brits sign a separate peace and walk away.



Yeah, I'd go with early 1918 because I don't think they'd have survived the Spring Offensives. Possible, but unlikely. But there's no reason for Germany to fight Britain after France is defeated anyway.



That's the point of disagreement. Germany's martial spirit was pretty much spent by 1918, and a victory over France would have enabled them to come out of that war with major gains in the East, some reparations from France, and probably some French colonies. But the German people were exhausted, and there hadn't even been a German desire for massive conquest before the war. Had the Russians agreed to stop their mobilization, there wouldn't have been a major war.



This sounds more like the speculative continuation of a wargame that goes past the last turn than a realistic assessment of what the Germans would have done. They'd been bled white already by the war. They had shiny new, very favorable deals for oil with the new Russian government, and Britain was not a historic enemy. And German/Turkish interests diverged. The Ottomans wanted Russian oil fields in the Caucasus for themselves, while the Germans preferred they remain under the control of a defeated, weak Russian government that had offered the Germans very favorable terms. I can't fathom the German people tolerating German troops fighting for in India, of all places.

All good points.
 
All good points.

This is always fun stuff. I remember seeing some cheesy paperback about 30 years ago called "Old Blood and Guts is Going Nuts" and it was the "what if" of Patton ignoring orders and attacking the Russians.

The whole alternate history thing than can be a blast.
 
Last edited:
This is always fun stuff. I remember seeing some cheesy paperback about 30 years ago called "Old Blood and Guts is Going Nuts" and it was the "what if" of Patton ignoring orders and attacking the Russians.

The whole alternate history thing than can be a blast.

As an Armor/Cav guy, I really would not have fancied tangling it up with T-34/85s and IS-3s using Shermans. Even with air superiority it would have been a very "getting immolated because the Sherman catches fire if someone sneezes at it" affair.
 
Returning to the subject of Ukraine, here are two recent interesting happenings:

* A declaration of war by other means -- Minsk II

An interesting tidbit from the article: "But perhaps the ceasefire will take hold – strange things in Moscow, seemingly unconnected, but connected, are occurring. Konstantine Malofeyev, swivel-eyed nationalist and ultra-conservative Orthodox believer has had his apartment in Moscow searched yesterday. He is the multi-billionaire responsible for a large part of the “separatist” funding.

Prima facie it looks like another attempt to nail him for a scam that defrauded VTB Bank back in 2007, but in a nation that runs by way of “rule by law”, there is no way this would happen to somebody like him without the required Kremlin sanctioning. Thus this occurrence may be interpreted by some as a signal to him to stop the funding in eastern Ukraine. Certainly if his continued funding was required, then this incident would probably not have happened – now anyway. Alternatively his funding of the swivel-eyed far right and ultra-Orthodox within Russia may have exceeded what the Kremlin considers “safe”. Either way, a message about something is being sent to Mr Malofeyev under the guise of an allegation from some 8 years ago."


* Poroshenko threatens Martial Law - but for which audience?

Essentially a move by Ukraine's president to tell the regional leaders of oblasts (states) to get their shit together and start abiding by the efforts to clean up corruption, or else.
 
Last edited:
A topic I've brought up before which has led to my reluctance to get too involved in Ukraine (despite my support of the people) has been the level of corruption there. If they are not willing seriously to tackle the issue, then are they deserving of help?

A response would be, 'Who gives a damn about the corruption, because much larger issues are at stake--the security of the region. Therefore, Ukraine should be help regardless because it means thwarting Russia's aggression." It is an approach that likely to result in billions of dollars/euros being flushed down the toilet if corruption isn't addressed as part of that. A fair bit of the money will either disappear or be redirected back to corporations in the U.S. that would be providing military support. If the latter, then how much is that influencing policy? I don't buy the justification of those claiming that Ukraine should be helped for Ukraine's sake. Not that the reason isn't a legitimate one, but I sense some of those espousing it are using it as a pretext to find financial gain in it somehow.

That said, Ukraine has been making some legitimate efforts to clear the country of corruption. Most recently:

Saakashvili has been granted a position in the government. He is the former president of Georgia who helped to clean up the corruption in his home country. It is a significant happening. The post is an interesting read.

The Prosecutor General Shokin had Alexander Efemov (former head of the Party of Regions) arrested for fraud and abuse of power, not to mention being a person rumored to be helping finance the "separatists". It is a move that would not have been made before. Shokin doesn't appear afraid to piss people off.

The moves are promising and indicate that Ukraine is attempting to make a serious effort to rid itself of corruption. But, still, the process may take awhile given how engrained it has been in the culture for 100+ years.

Also, here is another interesting article:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...ger-than-believed-heres-what-it-needs-to-win/

Ukraine’s military is stronger than believed. Here’s what it needs to win.

Members of the Ukrainian armed forces ride on a military vehicle near Debaltseve, eastern Ukraine, Feb. 16, 2015. REUTERS/Gleb Garanich

“The hour of Europe has dawned.”

So said a prominent European leader about tense negotiations to end a war that threatened to tear peace and prosperity apart. But those words didn’t come from either German Chancellor Angela Merkel or French President Francois Hollande after they emerged from an all-nighter with Presidents Vladimir Putin and Petro Poroshenko of Russia and Ukraine, respectively, clutching a hard-won ceasefire in hand.

Without the ink being quite dry on the Minsk agreement, all parties are quick to stress how delicate and fraught enforcing its terms will be; fighting actually intensified in the hours before the truce began at midnight Sunday and has not abated, at least in one place along the line. Ukraine wanted an immediate end to the shooting, but as Russian-backed separatist (and Russian) forces closed in on the strategic town of Debaltseve, Putin demanded — and got — the delay of a few days to give his side a pre-truce chance to increase their gains.

Up to 8,000 Ukrainian soldiers are fighting in the exposed salient; surrounding and defeating them — or forcing their surrender — would be a significant victory for the separatists. Conversely, for Ukraine, holding out effectively or counterattacking would preserve its positions and, more importantly, soldiers’ morale.

Conventional wisdom thus suggests that Ukrainians are in a desperate predicament, and that the Russian behemoth is an unstoppable steamroller. Because they believe that a military solution is hopeless, Merkel and Hollande’s frantic diplomacy was partly a dissent against President Barack Obama’s public debate to arm Ukraine with “lethal defensive aid.”

But in fact, the war may be less of a mismatch than it first seems, at least in some ways. Mark Hiznay, senior researcher in the Arms Division for Human Rights Watch, said, “We’d like both sides to refrain from using cluster munitions,” as the organization has documented. “There is lots of old Soviet ammunition stored in Ukraine,” he explained, accessible to all parties, and that “massive firepower is being used in a way that negatively impacts civilians; firepower that is simple to use, indiscriminate and disproportional.” Ukraine, like its Russian opponents, has no shortage of artillery, rockets and tanks — the old, heavy metal weapons of 20th- century mechanized warfare.

Unlike Ukraine’s, the Russian army has improved in the past few years. As Carlotta Gall, writer andNew York Times journalist who has covered many Russian and American wars, observed, “the Russian artillery was devastating, really accurate. You could see the craters in the fields, the bracketing. Nearly a hundred Ukrainian tanks were smashed at the Battle of Ilovaisk. The Russian columns had new weapons and were spic and span.”

However, she added, “They are still way behind the high-tech U.S. Army. I am comparing them to their units in Chechnya 20 years ago, when the Soviet Union had just collapsed and they were a shambles, and so were brutal and thuggish as well. Ukraine is in that position now — an army that has not seen any investment since independence, drunk sometimes and poorly led; the volunteers are separate. Whereas, clearly, the Russian army special forces have had some investment.”

Those volunteers are key. More than 50 territorial defense battalions, with more than 7,000 volunteer soldiers, have been formed in the past year, from scratch. As often as not, they are the infantry at the front. And the civilian effort goes further. Even regular Ukrainian army units are supplied with food and equipment from donors, in the absence of proper government logistics.

Weak compared to Putin’s Russia, certainly. But the national awakening evident in Ukraine’s volunteer battalions is of a quality hard to imagine in Western Europe or the United States today. For it’s not only the flowering of patriotic rhetoric, but also of citizens in large numbers picking up arms and actually risking — and losing — their lives. Like the Kurds of Iraq, the Ukrainian volunteers are pro-Western and wonder why the West doesn’t help them more, rather than deride their chances with “realism.”

Some of the volunteers, such as the Azov Battalion, have been accused of ties to right-wing and fascist movements, accusations that the Russians are quick to amplify but have some truth to them, nonetheless. Regardless of ideology and the long-term danger to Ukrainian civil society, a broad spectrum of Ukrainian society is now united to fight the war.

The American plan to provide arms, on hold in light of the new armistice agreement, might be exactly what Ukraine needs if the bloodletting flares anew. Not tanks or cannon, of which Ukraine has plenty, but high-technology items that would give light infantry the ability to blunt or stop a Russian or Russian-backed attack. The list is specific: antitank missiles, drones and radars that can locate incoming artillery fire.

“Their sense of belief is amazingly strong,” Gall said. “If armed and organized, they will put up a big fight. They have deep conviction.” The Pentagon agrees, having just announced that U.S. soldiers will start training Ukrainians in March, regardless of whether or not the weapons will be a graduation gift.

Just as critically, Ukraine received an International Monetary Fund bailout of $17.5 billion, to be paid out over the next four years, to rebuild and support its shattered economy. That, and if oil prices continue to stagnate and hollow out Russian wealth, and if American weapons arrive if the ceasefire fails, might be the margin of error for Ukraine to emerge successfully from war and collapse in the long term. That’s a lot of ifs, but ultimately not as impractical as some may believe.

And what about the “hour of Europe?” Jacques Poos, foreign minister of Luxembourg, was speaking for the European Union when it thought it had defused the breakup of Yugoslavia peacefully in 1991. Around 50 people had been killed in fighting at that point, and Western Europe believed it had nipped war in the bud. At least 150,000 more would die all across the former Yugoslavia in the next 10 years. A year into this conflict, there are more than 5,000 dead in Ukraine. This time, nobody dares claim that it is the hour of anything.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misquoted Jacques Poos in the first paragraph.
 
A topic I've brought up before which has led to my reluctance to get too involved in Ukraine (despite my support of the people) has been the level of corruption there. If they are not willing seriously to tackle the issue, then are they deserving of help?

A response would be, 'Who gives a damn about the corruption, because much larger issues are at stake--the security of the region. Therefore, Ukraine should be help regardless because it means thwarting Russia's aggression." It is an approach that likely to result in billions of dollars/euros being flushed down the toilet if corruption isn't addressed as part of that. A fair bit of the money will either disappear or be redirected back to corporations in the U.S. that would be providing military support. If the latter, then how much is that influencing policy? I don't buy the justification of those claiming that Ukraine should be helped for Ukraine's sake. Not that the reason isn't a legitimate one, but I sense some of those espousing it are using it as a pretext to find financial gain in it somehow.

That said, Ukraine has been making some legitimate efforts to clear the country of corruption. Most recently:

Saakashvili has been granted a position in the government. He is the former president of Georgia who helped to clean up the corruption in his home country. It is a significant happening. The post is an interesting read.

The Prosecutor General Shokin had Alexander Efemov (former head of the Party of Regions) arrested for fraud and abuse of power, not to mention being a person rumored to be helping finance the "separatists". It is a move that would not have been made before. Shokin doesn't appear afraid to piss people off.

The moves are promising and indicate that Ukraine is attempting to make a serious effort to rid itself of corruption. But, still, the process may take awhile given how engrained it has been in the culture for 100+ years.

Also, here is another interesting article:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...ger-than-believed-heres-what-it-needs-to-win/

Saakashvili. Lol. That is a big fuck you to Putin. He hates the guy.

Read the Reuters article earlier today. Given that the funding and weapons actually get to the Army, the Ukrainians are more than strong enough to be respectable defensively. No one expects the Ukrainians to drive the Russians and their toadies back into the Rodina; but merely give them a big bloody nose.

We should also be talking to the Baltics, Romania, Finland and Poland about beefing up their forces (Poland I am not too worried about. Leopard 2A6s are state of the art). If the Bear is returning to the old ways, it is best to never go in the woods without a big gun.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top