 |
|  |
 |
|
greeny
|
|
The Kremlin
Jan 2001 time: 05:28
|
|
Isn't grand strategy the Politburo's job? i.e. we decide WHAT needs to be done at the Grand Strategic level, and then STAVKA decide HOW they're going to do it (at the Operational and Tactical level).
Foe example we, the Politburo might decide that it is in our strategic interest to take Sweden, or make a concentrated narrow blitz to Berlin, or to advance on a broad front all at once. And then STAVKA decides what operations need to be made to achieve it.
Think of it as George W. Bush deciding to invade Afghanistan/Iraq and WHAT the Armed Forces are meant to achieve, and then it’s up to the Generals to work out plans on HOW to actually do it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bossy20000
|
|
Brussels
May 2003 time: 06:28
|
|
I don't agree comrade Henrikov, because it is a strategic choice. All tactical matters should be dealt with in STAVKA, the strategic matters are for the Politburo. This doesn't mean the politburo won't consult the Marshal or his front commanders, it just means that the Politburo takes the final decision in strategic matters. Afterwards, it's up to STAVKA to find a way to do what has been decided.
I thought this is what we decided when the Politburo-idea was being considered?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
H Tower
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bossy20000
I don't agree comrade Henrikov, because it is a strategic choice. All tactical matters should be dealt with in STAVKA, the strategic matters are for the Politburo. This doesn't mean the politburo won't consult the Marshal or his front commanders, it just means that the Politburo takes the final decision in strategic matters. Afterwards, it's up to STAVKA to find a way to do what has been decided.
I thought this is what we decided when the Politburo-idea was being considered? |
Apperently you've changed your mind recently. 
quote:
Origianlly posted by Bossy20000
I'm not on Stavka, but I suggest we start discusing our strategy for next winter. If we know what we want to do, we can put all assets in position in time, and hit the Germans on every front and push them back. I ask comrade Marshal to correct me, or add things, but I think we best do this by placing objectives for every front, and discussing how we will do things.
For example: Attacking Galati, from Sevastopel. What will this need, when could we do it, what needs to be done first, what does it give to us, what to do when we take the city, etc We should discuss these things well in advance, so we won't encounter surprises when we actually do it !!
|
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...800#post2034800
Not to mention the definition of STAVKA as written in it's thread:
quote: STAVKA Is the Council of Front Commanders chaired by the Marshal and discusses matters of Grand Strategy involving matters concerning more than one front, reinforcement priorities and offensives. |
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...359#post2029359
The Marshal suggests that the arm chair quarterbacks in the Politburo stick to their "what if?" questions and let the Military decide upon Military matters.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
H Tower
|
|
quote: Originally posted by conmcb25
Here is an example:
The "What" would be: A push to Berlin and the Ploesti Oil Feilds."
|
Funny, I just did a poll about Grand Strategy a few days ago, I don't remember a hue and cry about me usurping from the Politburo
quote:
Politburo discusses the what in general terms. The Stavka discusses the who, where when and how in Stavka.
|
No.
quote:
All Im talking about is the Strategic Objectives and essentially we will all decide that because we will open a discussion and decide upon it, All comments will be welcome. But we are responsible for making sure the discussion happens and then we will issue our "Grand Strategy". |
You're grasping for power, and I won't stand for it.
Oleg Sorokin, Marshal of the Soviet Union
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Bossy20000
|
|
Brussels
May 2003 time: 06:28
|
|
Well, as a reply to your post about me changing my mind.
The first quote is one of today, the other is one of May the 26th. On may the 26th, the Politburo wasn't founded yet. We only saw birth on May the 30th, and received our commisions on June the 7th.
So, the second quote you use was made BEFORE we had a politburo. STAVKA was all we had, so it was clear we had to discuss general strategy there. Now we do have a Politburo, so we can discuss strategy there instead of doing it at STAVKA.
The third quote you use is one of yourself, in STAVKA thread, made on May 25th, also before there was a Politburo.
Before you start insultive posts, you better should do some research! 
EDIT: I still have to do the polls about comrades Anzyakovs proposals for the Politburo. Should I wait until this is cleared out?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Xenozod
|
|
If you didn't agree with this, you shouldn't have voted yes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bossy20000
|
|
Brussels
May 2003 time: 06:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by PinkyGen
Good post Comrade Anzyakov, this is a team effort, and it reminds the Politburo members that we can affect the military strategy by choosing which fronts to spend money and build weapons for. |
Well, this is exactly the reason why the Politburo has to discuss on matters of Grand Strategy. If we don't give the front commanders the units or the money to attack, many of them won't be able to do an attack. Therefor, Politburo should discuss where, what etc to attack, and then leave the tactical situation to STAVKA.
An example: if we say to take Ploesti in two turns and we give the units, we have decided on grand strategy. How the city is taken, is up to the Front commander. He decides which units will be used in the task force etc
I thought this was what we agreed on?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
H Tower
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bossy20000
If we don't give the front commanders the units or the money to attack, many of them won't be able to do an attack.
|
Sounds like a threat there to me. Are the armaments and economic minister going to refuse to build units or rushbuy needed structures? You're getting it all wrong! The Politburo is there to provide the tools to defeat Germany, you should be out there asking what the commanders need, not telling them.
quote:
Therefor, Politburo should discuss where, what etc to attack, and then leave the tactical situation to STAVKA.
|
If you mean like, we should attack Finland in force, or we need to attack the Germans in the South or make a strike deep into Germany, we can do that. I'll accept that.
quote:
An example: if we say to take Ploesti in two turns and we give the units, we have decided on grand strategy. How the city is taken, is up to the Front commander. He decides which units will be used in the task force etc
|
Not only no, HELL NO. That's an operation you've planned there, straight with a timetable, and an unrealistic one to boot. Now if the politburo suggests a strategy like, "deny the use of the Romanian oilfields by the Germans, that's something else entirely, something I'll grudgingly accept. No freaking timetable though, and no direct orders to attack a city.
quote: Originally posted by PinkyGen
Good post Comrade Anzyakov, this is a team effort, and it reminds the Politburo members that we can affect the military strategy by choosing which fronts to spend money and build weapons for. |
The Marshal eagerly awaits to perform his one remaining job of pushing end of turn.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Bossy20000
|
|
Brussels
May 2003 time: 06:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by H Tower
Sounds like a threat there to me. Are the armaments and economic minister going to refuse to build units or rushbuy needed structures? You're getting it all wrong! The Politburo is there to provide the tools to defeat Germany, you should be out there asking what the commanders need, not telling them.
If you mean like, we should attack Finland in force, or we need to attack the Germans in the South or make a strike deep into Germany, we can do that. I'll accept that.
Not only no, HELL NO. That's an operation you've planned there, straight with a timetable, and an unrealistic one to boot. Now if the politburo suggests a strategy like, "deny the use of the Romanian oilfields by the Germans, that's something else entirely, something I'll grudgingly accept. No freaking timetable though, and no direct orders to attack a city.
The Marshal eagerly awaits to perform his one remaining job of pushing end of turn. |
1. I wasn't threatening, just saying you need the Politburo, and can't ignore it
2. The second thing you say is exactly what I meant
3. I was just giving an example, it wasn't meant to be done in the next two turns. Taking Ploesti is the same as denying the Germans the use of the Romanian oilfields, so I don't see what your problem is. Is it only because it was not vague? As for the timetable, I think we (the Politburo) can set timetables. This was an example (and not meant to be done the next two turns), but we (the Politburo) should be able to say to STAVKA to liberate the Baltic States in the next X months or other things alike. We (again the Politburo) should be able to decide how fast the military should free our people, take strategic cities, etc. This should be doen in concordance with STAVKA, but I think timetables aren't as bad as you make them look. You are doing the same when you are planning the liberation of Kiev.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
H Tower
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bossy20000
3. This should be doen in concordance with STAVKA, but I think timetables aren't as bad as you make them look. You are doing the same when you are planning the liberation of Kiev. |
There is a difference, I presented the whole thing as my point of view, what we might do, never once did I present it as an order. THAT, is the difference.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|