On 28 Oct 2003 10:15:27 -0800, (Stuart Wilkes)
wrote:


France surrendered because it had no more manpower nor space to continue
the war so all their remaining soldiers went to POW camps.

And the Soviet government did not surrender

Correct. Unlike French government, it still had the territory,
manpower and industrial resources to continue the fight with. However,
just like French government, Soviet government tried to negotiate a
cease fire. The difference is that Hitler rebuffed Soviet approach,
but accepted the French (contrary to the wishes of some senior German
generals). Had Hitler refused Petain's request for the cease fire,
French government would probably left metropolitan France and settled
in Algeria. It would still leave Germans as masters of France.

nor did it fail to employ its air force

You will be well advised to check the number of aircraft (+1500)
Germans lost in the Battle for France.

nor did it fly a suprisingly intact air force to North Africa.

It wasn't intact and was definitely defeated. Luftwaffe also had
hundreds if not thousands of aircraft scattered on the airfields in
Germany on May 8th, 1945. So what? They still lost the war.


Why? If the French government left assets unemployed and surrendered
them, why should that count against the Soviets?

It refutes the story you are trying to sell.

but would represent argument against your thesis, that
Red Army represented the most efficient enemy realistically possible.

Did I say efficient? Nope. More determined and more effective at
killing German troops? Sure.

First, there were much more Germans and their allies deployed on the
front line in 1941 than in 1940. Check the figures. Second, the ratio
of losses was appaling as well as the territory lost. The only reason
Soviet Union did not surrender is that it was big enough and by that I
don't mean on this tiny strip of Polish and Rumanian territory stolen
in 1939 and 1940.


You are representing this as 3,000,000 German soldiers appeared out of
nowehere next to the Soviet border.

Was it a sneak attack, or not Drax?

Hey, few message ago you were writing about the defensive measures
Stalin adopted and were using that as a proof that he wasn't surprised
and that he expected German attack in 1941. Make up your mind, either
Stalin was wise by making treaty with Hitler and made all the
necessary preparations for the inevitable German attack in 1941 or he
took Hitler by his word and left the country unprepared for the
invasion announced as early as first edition of "Mein Kampf".

The primary person responsible for Red Army been caught napping

He took a calculated risk on being able to delay a German attack until
1942.

By pretending that attack was not going to happen? Again, make up your
mind. You wrote how Stalin had a directive for Barbarossa, we all know
British were bombarding Stalin with reports about German preparations,
the concentration of Wehrmach in Poland was impossible to hide, Sorge
was reporting about German attack and yet, Red Army was a victim of a
"sneak attack"? Do you seriously thinking that formal declaration of
war delivered by German ambassador few hours prior to the attack was
going to help?

is the man you feel was justified in invading Poland, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania and Finland under the pretext of "security in case of German
attack".

I do not believe that the attack on Finland was justified.

Was annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania justified when Soviet
Union already had military bases in the area?


What I don't get is your eternal insistence on either the Germans
being given the opportunity to conquer all of Poland and occupy the
Baltic States.

No, my eternal insistence is on Stalin declaring war on Germany and
joining the existing anti-German coalition in field. This was an
obvious proof of Stalin taking Hitler's word over western declaration
of war.


Drax