When did Germany lose the war?

Because at that time SU and GB were at war with Germany and Iran was of strategic importance for the supply of land leese.
It is very much doubtful that SU will try to move in Iran without any war.

 

Well Fuser...I'm totally perplexed...I think I'm reading this whole thread wrong now.
Help me out here. Seriously...Your last sentence. I thought we were discussing ww2
not any prelude to ww2. The facts are Iran was taken under Russian and British
control. I'm not being pedantic...Are you talking now pre ww2?

 

The SU had interests in Iran. If Nazi Germany had NOT attacked SU in June of '41, then the SU had plenty of other places to use their considerable forces. It was a gross strategic blunder by an insane and fanatical Nazi leader, demonstrating his complete lack of military strategy. The two could have waited to settle their ideological/politcal differences until after they had so much territory to carve up that the SU and NG could have kicked back and tossed a coin to see who got what. Instead of focusing on the bigger fish to fry, Herr Hitler fought over a worm, and F'd it all up!

 

If I am not wrong,the "Iran thing" was happening in the summer of 1941,shortly after the German attack on the SU .

 

Because someone here mentioned that if Germany hadn't attacked SU, SU would have moved in Iran without providing any basic reasoning..

Once again this isn't a video game. You have to provide some argument, why would SU want to move in Iran without a war and what other plentiful places you are talking about?? Was there any plan regarding this??

August 25 1941, a joint Anglo soviet invasion of Iran begun.

 

Lend Lease to the SU:
1941 :360000 tonersian Gulf:3.7 %,Far East :53.6 %;North Russia :42.7 %
1942:2453000 ton;PG :28.8 %;Far East:29.9%;NR:38.7 %
1943:4.794.000 tonG :33.5 %;Far East :49.8 %;NR:14.2 %
1944:6.217.000 ton G:28.8 %;Far East :45.8 %;NR:23.4 %
1945:3.673000 ton G:1.2%;Far East :56.6 %;NR :19.8 %
Total :
PG :23.8 %
FE:47.1 %
NR :22.7 %
Black Sea :3.9 %
Soviet Arctic:2.5 %

 

Beside I would also like to add that Germany actually offered SU to move in southwards direction towards Persian gulf and Arabian sea but it was refused, SU was more interested in European affair which was bound to bring her to conflict with Germany.

 

OK cheers, back on track...I wasn't seeing that.

 

IMHO: Hitler began to lose his war when he signed the Munich agreement. Later, when Hitler invaded Poland are so few chances that a decent British government sign a new agreement with him. At this point no one disputes that Seelöwe was not a feasible possibility. A country with eighty million inhabitants coulldn´t defeat, the SU, the British Empire and the USA ... And later is "THE BOMB".

 

So, if I have your "not a video game" logic understood, then you are saying:
1) It was not a mistake that Hitler chose to attack the SU, and it had nothing to do with Germany losing the war. ???
2) The SU never had any interest in entering Iran until after Hitler attacked SU, and only did so because... uh... because they spontaneously said "What the heck, we can ignore the Germans. And, the Brits are going into Iran, so we'll just come along for the fun." ???
3) The SU had not been supporting any factions in China for the previous few decades, and was not ever in conflict with Japan... neither prior to nor after the Germans invaded. ???
4) The SU had no intention of making any incursions anywhere in the world except in Europe, prior to being attacked by the Nazis. ???
5) In early-1941, the SU already fully intended to use all it's resources against Nazi Germany to drive straight to Berlin. ???

 

Where did i said that?? and how you came up this conclusion??

If you are saying that she had interest in Iran prior to invasion, the burden is on your shoulder to prove it, and up till now you have been unable to do so..

Don't make up things which no one here has said, reasoning behind this has already been stated in this thread but for you I will post it once again

"SU and GB were at war with Germany and Iran was of strategic importance for the supply of land leese. " certainly not for fun and beside it was a joint operation not individual operations..

Historically they did made incursions in Europe. Didn't they and if you are claiming something like incursion in Japan, China, Iran etc try to prove it once. Try to back it up..

Again totally irrelevant..By the way are you talking about suvorov's theoory of preemptive strike. Well its nonsense........

 

Well,it is obvious that,when in june 1940, Britain decided to continue the fighting, Germany only had very few chances to eliminate Britain/finish the war, before US/SU were interfering /would interfere .

 

And I am simply stating that, there was no such intentions, anything "could have, would have" but there was no such intentions..

You have to give some proof prior to 41, things were a lot different in 45 and is a totally different subject, Iran once again found herself in a very important strategic position with respect to cold war. She became much much more important for both western allies and SU in cold war.

Read about "Operation Ajax"

And as I have stated before Germany already gave an offer to SU to move towards Iran and SU flat out refused.. This event directly shows that SU had no interest in Iran prior to Barbarossa.

Which is quite Impossible and I am sure it has been done to death in this forum too.

SU showed no such desires and in OTL flat out refused such proposition

On what basis are you saying that it was certainly the case that SU was working with revenge in her mind??
If you do remember WW2 it was Japanese who twice tried to move into soviet (her allies) territory and manchurian offensive happened after allies requests and had many strategic objectives for SU but I have nowhere seen revenge as prime motivator..I hate to repeat it again but you know "This isn't a video game" but "International Politics"

SU told Communist China to work with nationalist, SU helped Nationalist even on the expense of communists during sino Japanese war. Its not that simple

I am just telling you the truth, its not my problem if it doesn't fit in with your imagination...

I have already given it, look carefully in this thread...

I am sure that you can come up with better arguments than this childish crap........

 

About the last sentence:I am not that sure

 

December the 11th 1941. There..said it..

 

To reply to the original question, September 15th, 1940. Failure of Sealion started the pebble that eventually begat the avalanche.

 

Fuser - Please find your argument somewhere in the 97 posts here and repost it. I'd love to read what you have to say, other than your refusal to accept that Operation Barbarossa was NOT in the best interest of Germany's "international politics". Furthermore, you are not "telling the truth", because you have no reasonable basis for telling anyone specifically what the SU would have done if they had not been attacked. If the situation changed because Germany did not invade the Soviet union, then the international politics would likewise change; don't you agree? Are you stating that the SU was supporting England against Germany in some major way prior to Operation Barbarossa? SU was already knifing Germany in the back?

 

For the last time don't make up things out of thin air, stop attributing to me something I never stated..

Yes I am and your failure to refute any of my statements clearly suggests that. What part of my post are you claiming to be not true?? Be more specific

And where do I am telling those things. Its you who is telling such things, so once again don't attribute to me something I never stated, its getting very cheap you know..........

You have yet provided nothing in support of your any suggestions, so how about giving some reasoning behind your assertions. I have already told you why all your suggestions were unworkable and you have been unable to refute any of those statements basically.

Where did I suggested that?? Will you engage in real debate for once?? why are you unable to counter anything that I have said rather than alluding to me things I never said in first place.. Its quite pathetic

Post no. 31, go and find it.........