Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union !!!

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Post Reply
SOVRAN
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 10 Oct 2006, 20:00
Location: New Orleans

Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union !!!

#1

Post by SOVRAN » 10 Oct 2006, 23:26

War between Germany and the Soviet Union was inevitable. Many people who see Barbarossa as Hitlers major blunder fail to realize that Germany had to crush the U.S.S.R sooner or later , according to Hitlers ambitions of gaining living space for Germany and creating a self-sufficient Empire.

In this thread I would like to discuss 2 questions. " Should Germany had invaded the Soviet Union at a better time" ,and "How could Germany defeat the Soviet Union having invaded on June 22, 1941?"

(We are assuming Stalin doesnt attack Germany)


1: SHOULD GERMANY HAVE INVADED THE SOVIET UNION AT A BETTER TIME?

Really, was there a better time than 1941? Try to see this from Adolf Hitlers point of view at the time. The Soviet military was weakened by Stalins Purges , and the Red Army performed poorly and suffered enormous casulties against the Finnish Army during the Winter War 1939-40. Also , I feel that the longer Germany waited , the more improved the Red Army would be and the more difficult destroying the U.S.S.R would be. Stalin was indeed preparing the Red Army for a potential war against Germany. Had Hitler waited until 1942-43 to invade, the Red Army may have been nearly equal to the Wehrmacht on a tactical level , and far more formidable than its condition in 1941. So , I see Hitler wanting to invade the Soviet Union in 1941 as rather logical.

Surely , many of you may be thinking that Germany should have focused on crushing British opposition in North Africa and the Middle East which would have given the Axis oil, and PERHAPS would have allowed the Axis to be stationed on the Turkish/Iran/Soviet Caucasusian border ,thus allowing them to strike into the oil-rich Soviet Caucasus from the south. Logistically, attacking the Soviet Union from the Caucasusian border could not really have worked without Turkish support. Would Turkey have entered the war on the side of the Germany had Axis forces been conquering the Middle East? I cannot really assume to know since I am ignorant about Turkeys foreign policy and population consensus regarding the Axis during WW2. If Turkey didnt cooperate, then the Axis really could not have attacked the U.S.S.R. from the Caucasusian border without invading and occupying Turkey , and they didnt have the man power for that campaign. Anyway, if the Germans had launched this Middle Eastern campaign, that would postpone Germanys invasion of the Soviet Union until at least 1942-43. Remember , the Red Army grows stronger , and the longer the Germans wait, the more powerful it becomes ,even if slightly.

A large reason for Barbarossas initial success was that it SHOCKED the Soviet Military. The Red Army and it leadership were completely surprised and caught off guard by the German onslaught. According to my sources, Stalin felt Germany wouldnt attack the Soviet Union and put itself in a two front war while fighting the British. Had Germany waited until it was at peace with Britian to invade the Soviet Union, then Germany might have lost the element of surprise and shock which played a large part in Barbarossa's early success in 1941. Stalin would be more inclined to believe Hitler would invade since Germany wouldnt be fighting another enemy , thus Soviet forces would probably be ready and alert had Germany invaded in 1942 or 1943 after concluding the war with Britain.

Also , Japan would most likely have stayed neutral and not have attacked the Soviet Union no matter when Germany invaded.

2: HOW COULD GERMANY WIN THE WAR HAVING INVADED ON JUNE 22, 1941?

I am aware that the original date for Barbarossa was May 15 , 1941. This ,however, cannot be put into consideration as a way for Germany to defeat the Soviet Union since it was essential for Hitler to assist Mussolini in the Balkan Campaign to protect his southern flank. I strongly feel that Germany, having invaded on June 22, could have defeated the Soviet Union or at least forced the Soviet Union to come to a favorable piece,but it would take more than 9 weeks.

* If Hitler didnt declare war on the United States of America* I feel this was Hitlers greatest mistake. Though the USA played no part in the Soviet success in the winter of 1941 and Stalingrad, not having declared war on the USA would have freed and spared German troops to be sent to the eastern front. Since Britian alone wasnt strong enough to invade Axis Europe , the Axis would have sent more troops to the east and at least forced the Soviets to favorable terms.

*If Hitler had put German industry on a War Time Footing before or during Barbarossa* This would have increased productivty. Planes , Tanks, Vehicles , etc... would be produced at a much faster rate.

*If the Luftwaffe had developed Heavy Four Engine Bombers and Long Range Escort Fighters* This would allow German bombers to carry a higher bomb loads and reach deep within the Soviet Union , and strike cities, factories , etc , probably as far as the Urals.

*If German forces entered the Soviet Union as Liberators rather than Conquerors* Much of the population in the western Soviet Union despised Stalin and would have helped bolster Axis forces if Germany would not have treated them harshly or as subhuman.

*If Germany persuaded Turkey to join the Axis*

*If Germany coordinated with Japan and persuaded Japan to attack the Soviet Union*(Highly Unlikley , and not worth it if Germany has to declare war on the USA)

Many people feel that diverting Army Group Center to the south to capture Kiev rather than advancing on Moscow in 1941 was a grave strategic error. I do not see it that way. Let us not forget that the Germans destroyed 650,000 Russian Soldiers during the Battle of Kiev,and the main objective of Barbarossa was to annihilate the Red Army. Also , driving toward Moscow without advancing in the south and capturing Kiev would have exposed Army Group Centers right flank to counter attack. Also , both objectives, Kiev and Moscow, seemed obtainable at the time. There was no guarantee that capturing Moscow would have defeated the Soviet Union, especially with the southern Russian Armies in the Ukraine still intact on the battlefield.

I no doubt believe that Hitlers Germany ,invading in 1941, could have defeated Stalin's Russia had Hitler not underestimated his enemies , and prepared Germany for a long war against the U.S.S.R.
Last edited by SOVRAN on 12 Oct 2006, 17:37, edited 2 times in total.

ranoncles
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 17 Jan 2004, 17:56
Location: The Netherlands

#2

Post by ranoncles » 11 Oct 2006, 12:10

“1: SHOULD GERMANY HAVE INVADED THE SOVIET UNION AT A BETTER TIME?

Really, was there a better time than 1941? Try to see this from Adolf Hitlers
point of view at the time. The Soviet military was weakened by Stalins Purges , and the Red Army performed poorly and suffered enormous casulties against the Finnish Army during the Winter War 1939-40. Also , I feel that the longer Germany waited , the more improved the Red Army would be and the more difficult destroying the U.S.S.R would be. So , I see Hitler wanting to invade the Soviet Union in 1941 as rather logical.

Surely , many of you may be thinking that Germany should have focused on crushing British opposition in North Africa and the Middle East which would have given the Axis oil, and PERHAPS would have allowed the Axis to be stationed on the Turkish/Iran/Soviet Caucasusian border ,thus allowing them to strike into the oil-rich Soviet Caucasus from the south.”
Only a madman willingly fights a war on two fronts (or three as the Mediterranean/Balkans constituted a fighting front as well). Germany would have needed to concentrate all their military power against Russia. Starting a new war while you are still embroiled in a previous one is madness, no amount of circular thinking will erase that basic fact.

“Logistically, attacking the Soviet Union from the Caucasusian border could not really have worked without Turkish support. Would Turkey have entered the war on the side of the Germany had Axis forces been conquering the Middle East? I cannot really assume to know since I am ignorant about Turkeys foreign policy and population consensus regarding the Axis during WW2. If Turkey didnt cooperate, then the Axis really could not have attacked the U.S.S.R. from the Caucasusian border without invading and occupying Turkey , and they didnt have the man power for that campaign. Anyway, if the Germans had launched this Middle Eastern campaign, that would postpone Germanys invasion of the Soviet Union until at least 1942-43. Remember , the Red Army grows stronger , and the longer the Germans wait, the more powerful it becomes ,even if slightly.”
Turkey was not pro-Germany or pro-allied and like Spain, it did not want to get embroiled as it was still rebuilding after WWI and the birth of modern Turkey. However, they would most likely have accepted the bribe of territorial gain in the Caucasus and the former Ottoman provinces of Syria – Iraq. Germany was hard pressed to find enough troops to launch Barbarossa. They certainly didn’t have the logistical requirements to do so (the head of logistics was ordered to decrease his projections to fit with available resources….). Placing an army on the Caucasus border and keeping it in supply would have seriously weakened the main effort on the Polish border.


“A large reason for Barbarossas initial success was that it SHOCKED the Soviet Military. The Red Army and it leadership were completely surprised and caught off guard by the German onslaught. According to my sources, Stalin felt Germany wouldnt attack the Soviet Union and put itself in a two front war while fighting the British. Had Germany waited until it was at peace with Britian to invade the Soviet Union, then Germany might have lost the element of surprise and shock which played a large part in Barbarossa's early success in 1941. Stalin would be more inclined to believe Hitler would invade since Germany wouldnt be fighting another enemy , thus Soviet forces would probably be ready and alert had Germany invaded in 1942 or 1943 after concluding the war with Britain.”
The element of surprise certainly worked in Germany’s favour but it was not enough to defeat Russia. It is therefore not a decisive element and loses its value as a result. If Russia had less troops or was much smaller, a sudden blow might have been decisive. But with the ability to absorb such a blow, it lost its potency.

”Also , Japan would most likely have stayed neutral and not have attacked the Soviet Union no matter when Germany invaded.”
Germany never bothered to coordinate their strategy with Japan (or Italy). Japan was utterly shocked by their defeat at Nomonhan/Khalkin Gol in 1939 and subsequently looked southward but might have been persuaded to invade Russia in conjunction with Germany. Especially if much of the fearsome tanks had to be sent west. The influential Japanese army was always focused on the Asian continent and would have carried the day if properly addressed. But it would have taken a diplomatic effort based on equality, something Germany lacked.



2: HOW COULD GERMANY WIN THE WAR HAVING INVADED ON JUNE 22, 1941?

I am aware that the original date for Barbarossa was May 15 , 1941. This ,however, cannot be put into consideration as a way for Germany to defeat the Soviet Union since it was essential for Hitler to assist Mussolini in the Balkan Campaign to protect his southern flank. I strongly feel that Germany, having invaded on June 22, could have defeated the Soviet Union or at least forced the Soviet Union to come to a favorable piece,but it would take more than 9 weeks.”
Apparently, the spring of 1941 was exceedingly wet so the invasion would have had to be postponed due to poor flying weather and too muddy roads. The main problem of the Balkan campaign was the wear & tear on the mechanized forces. The German vehicles urgently needed an overhaul after the Balkan campaign which they did not get. This resulted in much higher attrition during Barbarossa in those divisions which had been engaged in the Balkans previously.
”If Hitler didnt declare war on the United States of America. I feel this was Hitlers greatest mistake. Though the USA played no part in the Soviet success in the winter of 1941 and Stalingrad, not having declared war on the USA would have freed and spared German troops to be sent to the eastern front. Since Britian alone wasnt strong enough to invade Axis Europe , the Axis would have sent more troops to the east and at least forced the Soviets to favorable terms.”
The declaration of war against the USA was in many ways just a formality. The USA was already heavily engaged against Germany. Its navy attacked U-boats and helped carry supplies to Britain. The USA supplied Britain with a vast amount of supplies etc. and helped Britain stay in the war after it became bankrupt in early 1941. Without American assistance, Britain would have been out of the war by 1942 at the latest. Germany did not believe America could project military strength for up to 3-4 years because that was what it took them to rearm. There was not a single extra division in the west because America was at war with Germany in 1942. Germany needed to win the war against Russia in 1941. Their failure meant they could not win the war on their terms anymore. America was largely immaterial in this phase of the conflict.

“If Hitler had put German industry on a War Time Footing before or during Barbarossa. This would have increased productivty. Planes , Tanks, Vehicles , etc... would be produced at a much faster rate.”
To a point, this is correct. But it takes about a year before such a decision starts producing actual returns. Hitler was an idiot and his decision to DEMOBILIZE troops after the battle of France probably cost the Wehrmacht more during Barbarossa than his decision not to go to a war footing. Again, Germany could only have won by winning a single campaign, before Russia could mobilize its huge reservoir of manpower and industrial might. Although more weapons might have allowed the Germans to achieve a stalemate after Barbarossa failed.

”If the Luftwaffe had developed Heavy Four Engine Bombers and Long Range Escort Fighters This would allow German bombers to carry a higher bomb loads and reach deep within the Soviet Union , and strike cities, factories , etc , probably as far as the Urals.”
This is a major myth but completely unfounded. Perhaps bullshit is a better word. Strategic bombing has shown to be rather ineffective in WWII and only achieved results after prolonged attrition. It is debatable if the expenditure in resources really provided a proper return on investment. The allies had no choice in 1940-1943 because they lacked the strength to return to the continent, so bombing was their only option. The state of the art in heavy bomber design in the late 1930s was insufficient to allow the Luftwaffe to build anything more than a marginally effective heavy bomber force (just look at the RAF bomber command in 1940-1942).
”If German forces entered the Soviet Union as Liberators rather than Conquerors” Much of the population in the western Soviet Union despised Stalin and would have helped bolster Axis forces if Germany would not have treated them harshly or as subhuman.
This is of course the obvious war-winning stratagem. Had Germany chosen this option, the Soviet Union would have collapsed very quickly as many subjugated peoples finally saw a way out. But it ran against the very tenets of Nazism. Hitler wanted to annihilate the “subhumans” to create living space for his Aryan people. Liberating them did not fit in this picture. As a result, the soviets rallied around Stalin because they realized the Germans wanted to exterminate them. In effect, this is the most unlikely option for Germany to choose.
”If Germany persuaded Turkey to join the Axis”
Turkey would not have chosen the Axis without major support, e.g. weapons and supplies and the promise of territory. Hitler would have had to give up the Caucasus which was unlikely as it contained much needed oil. Germany would also have needed to send weapons & supplies at a time they were unable to provide for their own bloated army. This was the reason an alliance with Spain failed and it would have been the same reason an alliance with Turkey would have failed.

”If Germany coordinated with Japan and persuaded Japan to attack the Soviet Union(Highly Unlikley , and not worth it if Germany has to declare war on the USA)”
Moscow was saved by the transfer of troops from the far east. The removal of those troops from the Western battles (tied down by the Japanese) and the psychological impact of fighting on two fronts might well have led to surrender.
”Many people feel that diverting Army Group Center to the south to capture Kiev rather than advancing on Moscow in 1941 was a grave strategic error. I do not see it that way. Let us not forget that the Germans destroyed 650,000 Russian Soldiers during the Battle of Kiev,and the main objective of Barbarossa was to annihilate the Red Army. Also , driving toward Moscow without advancing in the south and capturing Kiev would have exposed Army Group Centers right flank to counter attack. Also , both objectives, Kiev and Moscow, seemed obtainable at the time.”
Hitler made the mistake of blurring his focus at several moments during the campaign, setting multiple objectives for his troops. Had he focused on destroying the Soviet forces, there would have been no need to send an army group to Leningrad. Hitler switched from military objectives to economic objectives and back. The capture of Kiev, while important, was not as important as the capture of Moscow. Army group South may well have done it themselves albeit slower. AG North’s infantry armies could have held the flanks while the panzer groups advanced on Moscow.


“I no doubt believe that Hitlers Germany ,invading in 1941, could have defeated Stalin's Russia had Hitler not underestimated his enemies , and prepared Germany for a long war against the U.S.S.R.”
I both agree and disagree with you on this. I don’t think Germany could have defeated Russia in a long war (not with Hitler and Nazism running Germany). But they had an excellent chance in 1941 had Hitler not underestimated his enemies and focused on destroying as much of the soviet army as possible and taking Moscow (the main industrial, administrative and logistics hub in Western Russia).
[/i]


SOVRAN
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 10 Oct 2006, 20:00
Location: New Orleans

#3

Post by SOVRAN » 11 Oct 2006, 14:01

"Only a madman willingly fights a war on two fronts (or three as the Mediterranean/Balkans constituted a fighting front as well). Germany would have needed to concentrate all their military power against Russia. Starting a new war while you are still embroiled in a previous one is madness, no amount of circular thinking will erase that basic fact."
Well, if invading the Soviet Union in June 1941 was an act of madness on the part of Hitler , I see method in his madness. If Germany had to invade the Soviet Union eventually ,what better time than 1941? Judging from the poor performance of the Red Army in 1941, I feel there was no better time. A two front war????? Please, the British Army was pathetic and in no way able to stop German intiatives on the continent without American military support. Hell , I would have probably done the same thing if I was Hitler. The only difference is that I would not have underestimated the Red Army, I would have not overestimated the Wehrmacht, and I would have prepared Germany to be at war with the Soviet Union at least until 1943.
"The declaration of war against the USA was in many ways just a formality. The USA was already heavily engaged against Germany. Its navy attacked U-boats and helped carry supplies to Britain. The USA supplied Britain with a vast amount of supplies etc. and helped Britain stay in the war after it became bankrupt in early 1941. Without American assistance, Britain would have been out of the war by 1942 at the latest. Germany did not believe America could project military strength for up to 3-4 years because that was what it took them to rearm. There was not a single extra division in the west because America was at war with Germany in 1942. Germany needed to win the war against Russia in 1941. Their failure meant they could not win the war on their terms anymore. America was largely immaterial in this phase of the conflict."
Declaring war on the USA was total idoicy. There is a difference between America Lend-Leasing supplies to the allies , and America being a belligerent in the European theater. Hitler could have avoided conflict with the USA at least until the war with the Soviet Union was over. Oh , even if Wehrmacht reached the Archangel-Volga line in 1941 , it probably wouldnt have ceased hostilities. Judging from the size of the country, its manpower , and resources, I feel that it was immpossible for Germany to defeat the Soviet Union in a single short campaign , but it could have defeated the Soviet Union had it prepared for a longer conflict by putting industry on a war time footing, building an effective long range bomber force,not declaring war on America, and excepting all the help it could get from the defective ethnic populations of the western Soviet Union , and using better diplomacy.
"Strategic bombing has shown to be rather ineffective in WWII and only achieved results after prolonged attrition. It is debatable if the expenditure in resources really provided a proper return on investment. The allies had no choice in 1940-1943 because they lacked the strength to return to the continent, so bombing was their only option. The state of the art in heavy bomber design in the late 1930s was insufficient to allow the Luftwaffe to build anything more than a marginally effective heavy bomber force (just look at the RAF bomber command in 1940-1942)."
This alone isnt enough to have defeated the Soviet Union, but I feel it would have helped.
." Had Germany chosen this option, the Soviet Union would have collapsed very quickly as many subjugated peoples finally saw a way out. But it ran against the very tenets of Nazism. Hitler wanted to annihilate the “subhumans” to create living space for his Aryan people. Liberating them did not fit in this picture. As a result, the soviets rallied around Stalin because they realized the Germans wanted to exterminate them. In effect, this is the most unlikely option for Germany to choose."
Since destroying the Soviet Union would be a difficult task because of its size, manpower, and resources, Germany should have accepted all the help it could have gotten , even if it meant umm................LYING!!!! Germany should have used the populations of the Western Soviet Union to bolster Axis man power, and if it was necessary , deport , mistreat, kill these populations only after the war against the Soviet Union was concluded. So they should have at least pretended to be Liberators.
"I don’t think Germany could have defeated Russia in a long war (not with Hitler and Nazism running Germany). But they had an excellent chance in 1941 had Hitler not underestimated his enemies and focused on destroying as much of the soviet army as possible and taking Moscow (the main industrial, administrative and logistics hub in Western Russia)."
No matter how prepared the Wehrmacht was during Barbarossa, logistically, I feel that I was immpossible for Germany to achieve a total victory over Russia in a single campaign regardless if they invaded in 1941,1942,1943,1991 , but I do feel Germany , having been better prepared,could have defeated the Soviet Union within 1 to 2 years after Barbarossa.
Last edited by SOVRAN on 12 Oct 2006, 16:33, edited 1 time in total.

ranoncles
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 17 Jan 2004, 17:56
Location: The Netherlands

#4

Post by ranoncles » 11 Oct 2006, 15:00

Well, I can see we’re destined to disagree on this : )

In 1941, Russia wasn’t at it weakest. That was in 1940, before it constituted several organizational remedies and started production of MiG3’s and T34/KV1 tanks. It may have been pretty weak in 1941, but obviously not weak enough to be a pushover. If you look at the casualty lists, Germany already lost hundreds of thousands of men before the winter counter-attack. The divisions posted in Europe, the Afrika Korps (2 panzer divisions or 10% of Germany’s tank fleet), the Luftwaffe units assigned to the Channel front, were all precious resources which were deployed elsewhere and might have made a difference on the Eastern Front.

I agree that the British army was something of a joke in the early war period but the Germans still needed to deploy precious assets against land and air incursions. There were 200,000 men deployed in Norway….

Declaring war on America had no immediate impact on Hitler’s war with Russia. That war was already decided by the time it took place and Germany lost all chance of a victory of sorts when the drive on Stalingrad-Caucasus failed. Sure, it was a stupid move but not doing it would have changed nothing to the outcome of 1941-1942.

Strategic bombing would have been a dismal failure. The Soviets had a excellent high-altitude interceptor force based on the MiG-3 which was equal to the Messerschmitt Bf109F in that role. Because the air war was actually fought at low altitude, where the MiG was mediocre, it didn’t do very well, but it would have made short work of a German strategic bomber force. And if Germany had created a heavy bomber force, it would have been at the expense of its medium bombers, dive bombers and fighters. That would have severely impacted the speed of the panzer forces which relied heavily on their flying artillery. Strategic bombing only became effective in 1944, after the Luftwaffe fighters were defeated.

Do you really think Hitler could have gotten his men to lie to millions of people and then turn around and have them exterminated? The destruction of the Jews and other assorted categories and the inhuman treatment of the Soviets was the work of years of indoctrination. IMO, you can’t let your troops/people/society interact friendly with peoples and then suddenly turn around and have them slaughtered. It takes mind conditioning. And if those people had helped in the war, there would be bonds of friendship/camaraderie with Wehrmacht forces. Perhaps even with the Waffen SS. At the very least, they would have their own troops.
No, it would not have been as easy as you make it seem. Even if Nazi Germany had seen the wisdom in it. Take Poland. Most Poles hated Jews as much as the Nazis. But instead of getting their cooperation (and legions of very brave troops to fight against communism), they treated the Poles horribly and created a large resistance. In short, doing the (short-term) smart thing was simply not in the German make up.

SOVRAN
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 10 Oct 2006, 20:00
Location: New Orleans

#5

Post by SOVRAN » 11 Oct 2006, 16:15

Germany was focused on invading the West in 1940 ,thus it couldnt really consider invading the Soviet Union until Spring 1941. Still the Red Armys condition in 1941 would have been weaker than 1942 or 43.

Lets get one thing strait. THERE WAS NO EASY WAY FOR GERMANY TO DEFEAT THE SOVIET UNION REGARLESS OF WHAT HITLER OR OTHER HISTORIANS FELT. Many occassions , I see historians critizing Barbarossa by saying it was a direct frontal assualt and that it should have attacked the Russian flank , but........... there is no fu**ing flank. What , the Cacasus are the flank? Please, even if the Germans had the logistics to attack the Cacasus from the south , it still wouldnt have been a long ,dirty war. Believing that Germany could defeat the Soviet Union in a single 3-7 month campaign , even if Germany did everything on my list, is a gross underestimation of the Red Army and Soviet Military capabilities and determination. I do believe, however , that Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union within 1 to 2 years after the invasion. Germany should have prepared for a long war and tried to do all the sh** on my list, with the Heavy Bombers being the least important , I will admit.(Though I believe that German industry on a Full War Time footing could afford Heavy Bombers)

Historians are also wrong in believing that Germany was doomed when it attacked the U.S.S.R. They tend to underestimate Germany and Axis abilities to fight in a long war. Germany , though not having nearly as much resources as the Soviet Union , did have the sufficient man power and resources to fight a long war.

I promise you that had Hilter not declared war on America , the Soviet Union would not have been able to defeat Germany regardless of its success in the Winter of 1941 and Stalingrad. It would have ended in a stalmate probably with the Axis still deep within Russian territory.

Had Germany been preparing for a long war and German industry was put on a War Time Footing when Barbarossa was being planned in August 1940 , Germany would most likley have achieved much more success in 1941, and with Hitler not declaring war on America , the Soviet Union would have been in a hopeless situation and probably would surrendered or signed an armistice in 1942 or 1943.

Also , I do believe that despite Nazi indoctrination and propaganda, Germany could have allied itself with the anit-communist population of the western Soviet Union simply by issuing clear orders that every soldier is not to mistreat or harm the Baltic/Ukrainian/Belerusian/Slavic population. Hell , intelligent and many common German soldiers didnt believe that Arayan superority bullshit anyway. And lets not underestimate Nazi Germany's ruthlessness. Hitler and the regime wouldnt lose a minutes sleep if they enslaved , deported, exterminated the anit-communist ethnic population after they served their purpose in strengthing Axis Forces to defeat the Soviet Union.

Once again I say that since Germany had to destory the U.S.S .R evenutally, I understand the logic Hitler wanting to invade in 1941.

Also , Germany , though incapable of knocking the Soviet Union out in one decisive campaign, could have achieved victory,by preparing for a long conflict, being less harsh on the ethnic populations of western Russia, and not declaring war on America.
Last edited by SOVRAN on 12 Oct 2006, 16:34, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lkefct
Member
Posts: 1294
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 23:15
Location: Frederick MD

#6

Post by Lkefct » 11 Oct 2006, 17:06

One of the things that needs to be closely looed at is the idea of the battle of Moscow. Does taking Moscow mean a defeat of the Soviet Union? Certainly that implication has and will continue to be made. But since it never happened, it is largely speculative. A large quantity of the Soviet military production that was not transported to the Urals was in the Moscow area. Also, it seems like form their historic stand that they where not prepared to retreat beyond it.

In terms of getting to Moscow there where a lot of things that the Germans could have done to give themselves a better chance of winning. Not stopping early in the campaign and displacing their Panzer Groups North and South would have been a step in the right direction. The extra mialadge killed the strength of the Panzer Groups. THe infantry armies left holding the line suffered fairly sizeable causaalties from artillery in the period of wating. Add those men back in, as well as the best time for having the men move on the unpaved roads, this repsresents a major loss of time and effort dispersed on meaningless battles.

From the Soviet standpoint, they are still realling from the inital attack, and trying to get their act together. They have large forces, but they are having trouble getting them organized and figithng strength. Bringing in the reserves from Asia certainly helped, but just the time they gained to organize their defense has to have played a role. Even with that time, the Soviet attack was fairly haphazard when it fell in dec, and they where short of all sorts of equipment.

But getting the force to the gates of Moscow sooner and in better fighting shape is not the same thing as capturing it. A similar senario plyed itself out later in the war at Stalingrad, in that a strong german force was beaten and bleed white in heavy street fighitng. The big advantage the Germans have is that they can still advance on a fairly wide front and try and encircle Moscow, cutting off their flow of supplies and reinforcements. But do they have the force to fight on both sides of the pocket that forms? The Soviets are probably not going to surrender, so there is also the inevitible street fighting. If the Germans can encircle Moscow the loss of supplies and men make the outcome certain, but it would still be very costly and the chance of those reserves being brought in to relieve the city is very real.

Even if the Germans take the city, does it necessarily mean they win? certainly the Soviets would commit everything they have in the defense. It is a chance for Gemrany to destroy the Soviet army, plus likely to smash a lot of the army that had been conscripted since the start of the war, which in large part was the group that in 1942 & 1943 who where able to lead the counter attacks that kicked the Gemrans out. They would not be totally ineffective, but are not likelyto be anywhere near full effectiveness.

Heavy bombers would have been an xecellent idea, but i have always thought of that as a way of helping the Uboats (navigation and sinking ships). Bombing the interior of Soviet Union is a tough prospect. Little in the way of intell, and navigation is difficult too. Long range fighters makes a lot fo sense, but the German solution to that was the Bf 110. Most other countries don't have a solution to that problem. The US had not discovered that they had the best long range fighter yet even.

Full scale production certainly gives greater strength going into Russia. More assualt guns and Pz III and IV tanks makes things a better chance to win, but by no means assure it, especillay since the Germans fell so short historically. It is in fact Hitlers desire to avoid going to a full war footing that is driving his attack on Russia. He wants to end all the fighitning once and for all.

So if the Gemrnas don't go over and attack, they run the risk of fighting on the defensive vs the Soviets. Given their performance in the opening stages of the attack on Russia, there is little to suggest that the Soviets would win initally. Their perfromance in all phases was not good. But the problem is one of initative. If the Soviets attack, the Panzer troops might be able to smash the Soviets in time, but they run the very serious risk of having to just respond to the Soveit moves, rather then being able to manuver and smash the Soviets. It certainly give the Russians a chance they didn't have. And another war of agression at a latter date runs the risk of potentially having the US interfer after they have a chance to mobilize their economy. Noth that they didn't do it quick enough, but Hitler vastly underestimated how long it would take, but the US is very publically undergoing a ery large rearmament program. They will never be as weak as they are in 1941.

User avatar
janner
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Sep 2006, 23:40
Location: London

#7

Post by janner » 20 Oct 2006, 22:20

Only a madman willingly fights a war on two fronts (or three as the Mediterranean/Balkans constituted a fighting front as well).
Great Britain and America fought and won a war on three fronts:

Western Europe, the Med and Far East - as well as the Battle of the Atlantic and significant logistical support to Soviet Union.

User avatar
Lkefct
Member
Posts: 1294
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 23:15
Location: Frederick MD

#8

Post by Lkefct » 20 Oct 2006, 22:30

They also had somewhat greater logistical support for their efforts as well. Germany with smaller resources where willingly committing themselves to a wider range of conflicts, ones which they where ill prepared to undertake. That is what makes it madness.

User avatar
janner
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Sep 2006, 23:40
Location: London

#9

Post by janner » 20 Oct 2006, 22:41

Lkefct,

The UK didn't nor did we get Marshall aid to re-build afterwards. I don't believe the Germans sought a war on two fronts but their strategic mismanagement in the years leading up to the war made it inevitable.

Sorry to have taken this off topic

[email protected]
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: 01 Jul 2006, 11:09
Location: EURASIA

#10

Post by [email protected] » 21 Oct 2006, 17:17

"War between Germany and the Soviet Union was inevitable. Many people who see Barbarossa as Hitlers major blunder fail to realize that Germany had to crush the U.S.S.R sooner or later , according to Hitlers ambitions of gaining living space for Germany and creating a self-sufficient Empire."

Why? Germany today is one of the most prosperous countries in the world and it has no living space to speak of ! Its surface area is minimal... Same for Japan. Hitler had obtained false and half-baked ideas from social Darwinism which combined with his natural aggression led him into wild adventures.

User avatar
janner
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Sep 2006, 23:40
Location: London

#11

Post by janner » 22 Oct 2006, 10:46

Ah, then that explains why the Kaisar also went to war with Russia!

and you're in Baghdad because...

[email protected]
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: 01 Jul 2006, 11:09
Location: EURASIA

#12

Post by [email protected] » 22 Oct 2006, 11:14

!!!

SOVRAN
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 10 Oct 2006, 20:00
Location: New Orleans

#13

Post by SOVRAN » 22 Oct 2006, 21:20

Perhaps I should have said , War between "NAZI" Germany and the Soviet Union was inevitable. Having read Mein Kampf, this was obvious. Sure Germany today is very prosperous country , but it is not a World Power. In invading Russia , Hitler was trying to transform Germany into a self-sufficient Super Power. Hitler felt that the seizure of eastern territory would ensure the survival of the German people. By conquering European Russia , Germany would have huge space to expand its population, vast resources , and vast territory that would protect Germany from future attack.

User avatar
janner
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Sep 2006, 23:40
Location: London

#14

Post by janner » 22 Oct 2006, 23:46

I don't believe we can lay it at Hitler's door so easily. Largely left out of the scramble for Empire, Imperial Germany attempted to compensate through spreading its influence through Eastern Europe. It has been argued that Imperial Germany regarded Eastern Europe and, not-with-standing Austro-Hungary, the Balkans as its natural Empire. Hitler merely picked up an idea that had been knocking around for many decades and one which sounded very attractive to his target audience.

Forgive me for a very simplified version - such things are never simple - hence my gentle indication to the present situation in Iraq: oil or government change alone would be too naive an explanation for the complex rationale behind coalition intervention. Please, this is not meant to start an Iraq Flame just to compare complex situations.

ronl
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 05:31
Location: USA

#15

Post by ronl » 24 Oct 2006, 07:04

What hampered the German effort was the intrusion of Hitler himself. The Gereral Staff of Germany was far superior to that of the Soviet Union, especially after the purges. Hitler's refusal to allow backward movement, using Staligrad as an example, removed German tactical advantage and bogged down the advance needlessly. It also cost many lives. Hitler's lack of regard for the individual soldier also was responsible for the loss of many lives. During the winter of '41-'42 the German soldier lacked clothing to face the horrid Russian weather. The supplies were there, but never made it to the front. As many soldiers were lost to the winter weather as to enemy action. I do believe Germany was indeed capable of defeating Russia. It's generals were superior, as was the individual German soldier. I think the major reason for the defeat of Germany was Hitler's meddling. He should have left that in the capable hands of his commanders, such as Guderian.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”