Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Flipping soviet peoples

#136

Post by BDV » 06 May 2014, 20:39

Thre was no monolithic soviet people block. There were different folks with varied levels of antibolshevik animus or devotion to the bolshevik cause. Then there were devoted to the rus cause. Some could be flipped easier than others. It was different strokes for different folks.

For example, were there 1-200 albanian-bosniak muftis/imams on hand to talk it over with the captured Moslems? What happened with Abwehr's ukrainians? Were the Baltic countries restored with respective national armies restored?

Quite the contrary, the nazi german attitude can be summarized as "we need no stinking help".
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#137

Post by Alixanther » 06 May 2014, 20:43

flakbait wrote:Even so, with the vast majority of the civilian population of the Soviet Union AND the Red Army solidly BOTH against them the Germans stood absolutely NO CHANCE of EVER winning under ANY circumstances...Imperial Japan faced the exact same situation in the Pacific. Utterly INHUMANE ultra nationalistic fanatical `governments` that treat the conquered locals like so much dog poop stuck to their hob nailed boots will always find it so...and as soon as the conquered can begin to resist even passively, COUNT on it being done. NO sane human being wants to live under or serve a murderous regime WILLINGLY...
Except the Soviet regime was already to the point of being at least as murderous as the German occupation. If you potentially face the same perils from two different regimes, which one do you choose? Not to mention there's nothing "solidly" between the civilian population and the Red Army recruits - except they were equally terrorized by their regime. During 1941-1942 there has been a lot of domestic in-fighting between different population groups in Soviet Union (which could account for almost 1/2 of the total amount of Soviet civilian losses and had nothing to do with the German military offensives). There's no such thing as "the people of Soviet Union". That's propaganda BS - there's lots of different people and ethnic groups.
Also, ljawd said that the Soviets fought fanatticaly from day 1, which is quite the opposite of what happened - practically the 2,5 million strength Soviet Army in the west rose their hands up, after a brief attempt to oppose resistance.
So, at first even the "fierce resistance warriors" were contemplating surrender - as for a sane human being, every regime is preferable to a communist one. However, as German advancing party made blunder after blunder, and after patriarch Sergius supported the Soviets, everything was clear: the Russians fought not because Stalin told them so, but because Orthodox patriarch Sergius told them so. That way they could swallow the bitter pill...


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#138

Post by ljadw » 07 May 2014, 09:06

On 27 june ,the 20 PzD noted : the enemy is offering tenacious resistance from concrete positions (source : Stahel). Also on the same day ,Guderian wrote to his wife:the enemy resists bravely an bitterly (same source).Goebbels in his diary on 29 june:the Russians are fighting bravely (same source).
Meanwhile the German losses were rocketing : 40000 in june,170000 in july,200000 in august.
BTW,the figure of 2.5 million POW was only reached at the end of september .

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#139

Post by BDV » 07 May 2014, 15:37

The argument can be made that the initial Axis successes were due to the triple tactical-operational-strategic advantage the Barbarossa attack enjoyed in the first few weeks.

The strategic advantage was lost quickly as Soviets fell back on their logistic network (rail) while pursuing forces were hamstrung by strong logistical limitations. However the Axis operational advantage was also to a large extent squandered due to the Nazi plan that attempted to go "light" on heavy artillery on account of maintaining a high rate of movement.

While soviet units offered different levels of resistance, the myth of quickly surrendering Soviets was just that, a myth.


P.S.
200 k in one month seems steep. Sure it was not for the whole of the Axis?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

flakbait
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 02:37

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#140

Post by flakbait » 08 May 2014, 13:35

Am not saying EVERY soviet citizen on cue leaped to their feet, locked arms together and in unison shout "For Comrade Stalin ! For the eternal GLORY of the Worker`s Democratic Socialist Party !" or what ever. Am saying that after having sincerely WELCOMED the German invaders, when those same Russian peasants saw the same exact or probably even WORSE treatment, many decided to fight for Mother Russia. A lit match carefully used, a rifle shot there, a blast on a railroad track, a turned sign post, a handful of sand in a freight car axel grease chute...there a thousand different ways to passively resist and dozens to actively. And since almost EVERY `offense` under the Nazis carried a `death penalty ` rating it behooved 1 to think `bigger is better`...Within 6 months of starting their invasion, the Nazis now had another 3-4 MILLION potential enemies whom did not wear uniforms and certainly showed the same `mercy` they themselves dished out...

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#141

Post by BDV » 08 May 2014, 16:57

Be this as it may, the exploits (and the background) of the likes of say Zoia Kosmodemianskaya does show that there WAS a core of russian people dedicated to victory against the "invaders". At any price to themselves and their fellow countrymen.

OTOH, the 3-4 million "new enemies", while that was a problem that snowballed (partisan movement), I don't think that was the biggest problem. The main issue there was the standard Wehrmacht and Auxilliaries procedure to execute "all jews and bolshevik" upon entering a new "raion". Thus destroying any and all existing and potential low-level and mid-level management types, particularly in areas of the pre-1939 Soviet Union, thus basket-casing the local economies and making them (IIRC) into a net DRAIN for the 3rd Reich. That snowballed into its own set of problems.

No skin off Nazi's nose if the Astrakhan-Archangelsk line is reached in September 1941 ... we, however see things 20/20 and can judge these atrocities with the words of Fouche "worse than a crime".
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003, 08:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#142

Post by Konig_pilsner » 12 May 2014, 03:07

Nota claimed,
I think the nazi's could not stop being racists haters long enough to win the war
He proposed arming 1M Russian POWs, imprisioning another 1M, and using the remainder as forced labour.

I responded,
I have never read any credible sources to support this. When you find a way to feed, cloth, train, and arm one million POW's you let me know...
Of course Nota didn't defend his claim, BDV addressed the training aspect (poorly IMHO), and Flakbait ... well your guess is as good as mine. Be that as it may, I am completely open to changing my mind.

As I see it, Germany went to war with Russia under the context that it would be a swift victory. Had they anticipated even a 2-3 year engagement I doubt Barbarossa would have been launched in the first place. It is under this mindset of a quick victory that all the planning was made and many of the decisions need to be judged.

In general the newly aquired territory was to be resettled and exploited, so it is difficult to envision a policy that would enable the local inhabitants. Under that context, the Wehrmacht moved forward against the Red Army while the Einstzgruppen performed its function to eliminate opposition to the occupation. As BDV just mentioned, had Russia capitulated as planned then the policy was sound.

Of course that isn't what happened, so when people look for flaws in Barbarossa one of the often mentioned mistakes is treatment of the local populations. It is unclear to me what kind of contribution these people could make in the short term to effect operation Typhoon or even Blue. It is also unclear as to what value any raised formations would bring in light of the deficiencies in supply and logistics. Further, the concept of arming Russian POWs is so flawed on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

I hate to end where I began, but seriously if anyone can show me the logic as well as prove the capability of the Germans to execute such a radical change in policy I would we welcome to hear it.

Cheers,

KP

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#143

Post by ljadw » 12 May 2014, 07:07

BDV wrote:The argument can be made that the initial Axis successes were due to the triple tactical-operational-strategic advantage the Barbarossa attack enjoyed in the first few weeks.

The strategic advantage was lost quickly as Soviets fell back on their logistic network (rail) while pursuing forces were hamstrung by strong logistical limitations. However the Axis operational advantage was also to a large extent squandered due to the Nazi plan that attempted to go "light" on heavy artillery on account of maintaining a high rate of movement.

While soviet units offered different levels of resistance, the myth of quickly surrendering Soviets was just that, a myth.


P.S.
200 k in one month seems steep. Sure it was not for the whole of the Axis?
No,it was for the Ostheer only .

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#144

Post by BDV » 12 May 2014, 16:26

As I see it, Germany went to war with Russia under the context that it would be a swift victory. Had they anticipated even a 2-3 year engagement I doubt Barbarossa would have been launched in the first place. It is under this mindset of a quick victory that all the planning was made and many of the decisions need to be judged.
However detailed planning of a "Case Gestuck" is a must, and its implementation must start in August 1941 at the latest.

Further, the concept of arming Russian POWs is so flawed on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
I am equally befuddled by the argument that Nazi Europe could not have trained and clothed an extra million soldiers. Humor us with some more detailed exposition of your perceived flaws in POW-flipping, and I will attempt to return the favor.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003, 08:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#145

Post by Konig_pilsner » 17 May 2014, 09:46

Funny, Nota makes an unsuported post and then you address one of the five questions I asked yet I should clarify my arguement?

BDV wrote,
I am equally befuddled by the argument that Nazi Europe could not have trained and clothed an extra million soldiers.
I could be wrong, but didn't you just say this?
1 million out of the 3 captured in 1941 is too rosy, but 1/2 million, especially folks from Baltics, eastern Poland/western Ukraine could have been flipped.
One million, five hundred thousand... hey who's counting? The question isn't could the Germans have enlisted X amount of Russian POW's, but how many, at what cost, and for what value. You are just looking for confrontation and I see no value in continuing this untill you or someone else makes an arguement worth debating.

Sad and weak,

KP

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#146

Post by BDV » 17 May 2014, 13:43

KP,

Further, the concept of arming Russian POWs is so flawed on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

Were those not YOUR words?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#147

Post by steverodgers801 » 17 May 2014, 15:12

how about using the vast amount of equipment that was captured to start.

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003, 08:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

#148

Post by Konig_pilsner » 18 May 2014, 06:49

Further, the concept of arming Russian POWs is so flawed on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

Were those not YOUR words?
Ugg, mid-sentence shouting... now I know you are trying to get me going:)

BDV,

I cannot argue a negative. Untill there is a framework for how one million Russian POW's are going to be enlisted, trained, clothed/fed, armed, supported and deployed I won't engage in a debate. That is without even taking into account the dubious nature of rearming an enemy combatant.

Your X amount of recruits is 500k - 1M.
My X amount would be 1 - 20000.

Cheers,

KP

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Flipping Soldiers - the human aspect

#149

Post by BDV » 20 May 2014, 16:19

The flippability is all variable between ethnic-religious groups.

It's a big and very complex operation. It would require planning and preparation long before Barbarossa. Flipping one half million soldiers is not something that can be done overnight. Probably the Abwehr would need to be in charge. First, there will be different strokes for different folks. There will be 6 main target groups: ukrainians (Eastern rite catholic and orthodox), cossaks, muslims, Baltic country denizens, Belarus folks (Eastern rite catholic and orthodox), and russians.

As a general rule, these groups need to be separated, and processed differently. One thing that should start right away should be religious and national propagandizing (increasing psychological compliance). Romania could help with Eastern Rite and Orthodox priests, Finland could help with Orthodox priests, possibly under an umbrella of a re-activated Eastern-rite/Orthodox component of the KuK catholic chaplaincy outfit.

With the russian nationals, it is a little dicey. It is them where some subtlety is needed (why I thought Abwehr). And the key is obviously, the political comissars. Their propagandistic skills would be key for a successful propagandizing of the Russians, and possibly the Orthodox Ukrainians and Belarus. The sale to the politruks, especially jewish, can be very blunt ("You are dead to Stalin, but working for Nazi Germany can save your hide. One person of your choosing, all expenses paid, to Israel for each 10/20/100 rus you flip.")

This is a key first step but this is extremely important for a successful endeavour, to give ex-RKKA soldiers an ideal, a goal for their fight against bolshevismus.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Flipping Soldiers - Training

#150

Post by BDV » 23 May 2014, 21:36

After recrutiment, the next step is training.

The big groups that would require immediate training would be - pre-1939 Poland ukraineans and belarussians, Baltic country folks, and cossacks. They would probably be available for training (capture, softening up, given the sales pitch, closing the deal) in 3-4 months, starting about October 1941. The russians and probably the ukraineans and belarus of pre-1939 Bolshevik Russia would not have completed the de-Stalinization process until January-March 1942. Availability of Muslims would depend quite a lot on whether german effort would hit the right spot (hence Abwehr). I presume Bulgaria and Albania could provide a number of imams to ministrate to the Muslim faithful. Maritza would net a few extra from Bosnia.

In term of trainers, there were a number of professional soldiers in forced retirement in Nazi Europe. They could be "unretired" and offered reasonable salaries to train the ex-Soviet soldiers. Dutch, Danish, and Norwegian officers could assist the Finns in training soldiers from the Baltics. The training of ex-Baltic soldiers could be simply performed in the ex-NKVD and ex-RKKA barracks/training ranges in the area.

Czech and Slovak officers and trainers could be tapped to assist training the ukrainean and Belarussian. A boost could be provided by Belgian (and possibly French) officers.

Cossaks could possibly train in Hungarian/Yugoslav/Romanian/Bulgarian bases with Ungarian and Romanian training cadres, and with german advisers.

The training of Russian/ ex-USSR Belarus and Ukraineans is probably best under close german supervision, in bases in the Polish Reichskomissariat.

In term of training spots, I presume the Muslim could train in Bosnia and Albania. Officer training courses could be probably done in French and Italian bases.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”