perseus
Active member
It is said that the lack of preparedness by the Russians on the outset of Barbarossa made it difficult for the advancing Panzer columns to surround the armies since were still deployed in depth. This allowed them to be retreated into the immense Motherland, eventually leading the Germans to eventual defeat.
Does this mean if Stalin had believed Churchill and mobilised his armies in advance they may have been almost entirely annihilated at the front? Could a similar deliberate strategy have been used were just smaller forward units pick away at the advancing columns and draw out the supply lines towards the main force waiting some distance in the rear? Conversely could we say that mobilisation of the French and British forces towards the Front line in 1940 resulted in their downfall, and a sustained resistance may have been possible if they remained on French soil?
If so then perhaps mobilisation is a double-edged sword when facing a stronger enemy.
Does this mean if Stalin had believed Churchill and mobilised his armies in advance they may have been almost entirely annihilated at the front? Could a similar deliberate strategy have been used were just smaller forward units pick away at the advancing columns and draw out the supply lines towards the main force waiting some distance in the rear? Conversely could we say that mobilisation of the French and British forces towards the Front line in 1940 resulted in their downfall, and a sustained resistance may have been possible if they remained on French soil?
If so then perhaps mobilisation is a double-edged sword when facing a stronger enemy.