(2) :YES :Barbarossa was a desperate gamble to finish the war with Britain,before the intervention of the US . As it failed,the result was that Germany was faced by a war with britain and the SU,and that the US would intervene . Germany could not win such a war,which would end with the Soviets in Berlin .BDV wrote:(1) Yesljadw wrote:Hitler was hoping on Japan,because he realized that Barbarossa had failed (1) and that the final result would be the Soviets in Berlin (2).
(2) No.
Germany winning on the Eastern Front
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
Keitel? he was in his job because of his lack of intelligence. His nickname was Lakeitel or lackey a pun on his name. Hitler never had any illusion that Japan would attack the SOviets.
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
Gamble - yes. Desperate - no. Reckless and ill-prepared - yes.ljadw wrote:Barbarossa was a desperate gamble to finish the war with Britain,before the intervention of the US .
Yes.As it failed,the result was that Germany was faced by a war with britain and the SU,and that the US would intervene.
Soviets would end up in Berlin only because Berlin was less important to the Reich than the Ruhr.Germany could not win such a war, which would end with the Soviets in Berlin .
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
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
steverodgers801 wrote:Keitel? he was in his job because of his lack of intelligence. His nickname was Lakeitel or lackey a pun on his name. Hitler never had any illusion that Japan would attack the SOviets.
Keitel was a competent secretary state of war,and,he had no reason to lie to Bock .
Besides,the question is not if Hitler had any illusion that Japan would attack the SU,but that Hitler was hoping that Japan would attack the SU .
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
I disagree. The Wallies (i.e. the obdurate britons and USofA) were 3rd Reichs' deadly threat. Hence the joy of Adolf at Japan's attack on US. Stalin and his bolshevik hordes were more like the nagging health problem that sapped energy and would not go away.ljadw wrote:Keitel was a competent secretary state of war,and,he had no reason to lie to Bock .steverodgers801 wrote:Keitel? he was in his job because of his lack of intelligence. His nickname was Lakeitel or lackey a pun on his name. Hitler never had any illusion that Japan would attack the SOviets.
Besides,the question is not if Hitler had any illusion that Japan would attack the SU,but that Hitler was hoping that Japan would attack the SU .
Last edited by BDV on 28 Mar 2014, 18:09, edited 1 time in total.
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
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
I disagree. The Wallies (i.e. the obdurate britons and USofA) were 3rd Reichs' deadly threat. .[/quote]BDV wrote:.
And this is the obvious reason why Hitler was going east .
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
Adolf and his gang of massmurderers did not "go" east:ljadw wrote:And this is the obvious reason why Hitler was going east .
Kudos to the folks in the Soviet Union for defeating the Nazi aggressor, but the german focus was ALWAYS West.The German Armed Forces must be prepared to crush Soviet Russia in a quick campaign before the end of the war against England (Case Barbarossa).
For this purpose the Army will have to employ all available units with the reservation that the occupied territories will have to be safeguarded against surprise attacks.
For the Eastern campaign the Airforce will have to free such strong forces for the support of the Army that a quick completion of the ground operations may be expected and that damage of the eastern German territories will be avoided as much as possible. This concentration of the main effort in the east is limited by the following reservation: That the entire battle and armament area dominated by us must remain sufficiently protected against enemy air attacks and that the attacks on England and especially the supply for them must not be permitted to break down.
Concentration of the main effort of the Navy remains unequivocally against England also during an Eastern Campaign.
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
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
Jdaw I didn't say he lied, but simply he may have believed it but Hitler never ever wanted Japan to attack the SU. HE wanted Japan to go after the US and keep them busy.
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
As have said before Hitler and Co. COMPLETELY misjudged the industrial capability of the United States and apparently SCOFFED at the idea that the US could fight a 2 and 1/2 ocean and 9 theater war SIMULTANIOUSLY...he was ultimately proven very MISTAKEN.
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
I recall stumbling upon the following strategy for Germany. It is a high-risk one, however theoretically it can prove fruitful. The stages are the following:Wargames wrote: I expected to read several "The Germans could have won if..." debates.
1. Start preparing "Sea Lion". Construct a fleet of landing craft for the invasion force as a part of the general preparation effort . This armada should be kept in the Baltics to save it from any possible British bombing.
2. Amass invasion army in Western Europe, transfer a small portion of the armada to the North Sea. Leave a relatively weak force on the border with the Soviet Union.
3. Declare the invasion of British islands. Launch bombing raids on Britain. Eventually land several units on the British soil.
4. Soviet Union attacks you, Soviet armies march into Romania and Poland.
5. Immediately transfer the necessary forces to the East. Form a perimeter in Poland (along Vistula) and in Romania.
6. Once the Red army is in a compact mass stretched along the border, load the invasion force on the transports and unleash it on Estonian and Latvian coast.
7. March to the South in a sweeping Schlieffen-style offensive, cutting the advancing Soviet armies from the Russian heartland.
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
To do this they have to beleive that they can take out the French fairly quickly or use the craft in the East. What don't they build if they build these. Germany had significant constraints on a number of critical resources. If you build more of one thing then you have to build less of something else.Zart Arn wrote: I recall stumbling upon the following strategy for Germany. It is a high-risk one, however theoretically it can prove fruitful. The stages are the following:
1. Start preparing "Sea Lion". Construct a fleet of landing craft for the invasion force as a part of the general preparation effort . This armada should be kept in the Baltics to save it from any possible British bombing.
This sounds pretty much historical.2. Amass invasion army in Western Europe, transfer a small portion of the armada to the North Sea. Leave a relatively weak force on the border with the Soviet Union.
Why would you want to "declare the invasion". Landing and supplying said units is going to be the serious problem. Indeed historically they didn't think they could do it. Nothing you've stated so far explains how they can nullify the RN.3. Declare the invasion of British islands. Launch bombing raids on Britain. Eventually land several units on the British soil.
How can Germany get them to do this?4. Soviet Union attacks you, Soviet armies march into Romania and Poland.
"Immediately" transfering the necessary forces is unlikely. In the event of said invasion how much control will Germany have over exactly where they defend?5. Immediately transfer the necessary forces to the East. Form a perimeter in Poland (along Vistula) and in Romania.
Seems a lot of handwaving to me.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
A huge advantage the Germans had was the surprise Stalin allowed. Few units were close to readiness. Allowing the Soviets to declare war and invade meant that they will have some time to prepare. Plus what makes you think that Stalin will oblige? I believe he will wait for Germany to be in real trouble before he does anything. Forming a perimeter allows the Soviets to have territory instead of seizing their territory and if you are counting on the Romanian army to be of help you are sadly mistaken.
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
Well, if I have not made my point clear, the idea we are discussing is nothing else than an adaptation of Schlieffen plan to the conditions of the Soviet Union. The basic principal, that is behind the plan, is to drive a wedge between the enemy army on the front and its political and industrial centers in the rear. To make it work, it will be advisable, to let the adversary move away from his industrial centers as far as possible. Any step we make should bring us closer to this aim. That is why we allow the Soviets to get ready. That is why we allow them to launch their offensive. That is why we allow them to gain territory.
In the reality the Germans destroyed only a portion of the Soviet military power, allowing the rest to form a perimeter to the west of Moscow. The plan, which is being proposed, will allow to trap a much greater portion of the Soviet military potential in a huge 'kessel' near the border.
In the reality the invading German force was forced to fight its way through the ranks of numerous Soviet armies, which, though being surprised, managed to offer a certain degree of resistance, slowing down the invader. With Schlieffen plan in action, German armies (upon landing in Latvia and Estonia) will be able to march on Moscow, encountering literally no resistance, since the Soviet will be busy in the West.
The trick with "Sea Lion" is intended to tempt the Soviets into an aggression. They had lost the opportunity to surprise Germany from the rear once (May 1940) due to unexpectedly speedy fall of France. They long for such an occasion being offered again. The hoax with the invasion of Britain will give them an illusion of a second chance. The ploy also helps explain the mass construction/concentration of landing craft, which will be required for the landing in Latvia, and which, of course, will not go unnoticed to enemy spies.
It's not the matter of a large blue water fleet, requiring years to build. We are talking about light landing craft, that can be mass produced since autumn of 1940.
The "cheese" should be visible, if we want the mouse to taste it, activating the trap. The Soviets must believe, that Germany is dead serious about the invasion. Only then will they do, what the Germans (in our planning) want them to do.
Churchill acknowledges, that a possibility of small scale local invasion always existed. So, the Germans could have tried it, evacuating the troops, once the Soviets attack.
Generally speaking, there are two options: either the Soviets attack, or they do not. In the later case Germany loses nothing.
As far motivating the USSR to act, there are also two mechanisms:
- The first one, which has been already explained, is to influence the Soviet leadership by creating an illusion of an easy backstab opportunity, which they had missed in 1940.
- The second is to press the British government into coaxing the Soviets into the war. And that is the second aspect of the staged "invasion of Britain". When threatened with an invasion, Britain will try to build a continental coalition against the possible invader. So it was in the past, at least.
In the reality the Germans destroyed only a portion of the Soviet military power, allowing the rest to form a perimeter to the west of Moscow. The plan, which is being proposed, will allow to trap a much greater portion of the Soviet military potential in a huge 'kessel' near the border.
In the reality the invading German force was forced to fight its way through the ranks of numerous Soviet armies, which, though being surprised, managed to offer a certain degree of resistance, slowing down the invader. With Schlieffen plan in action, German armies (upon landing in Latvia and Estonia) will be able to march on Moscow, encountering literally no resistance, since the Soviet will be busy in the West.
The trick with "Sea Lion" is intended to tempt the Soviets into an aggression. They had lost the opportunity to surprise Germany from the rear once (May 1940) due to unexpectedly speedy fall of France. They long for such an occasion being offered again. The hoax with the invasion of Britain will give them an illusion of a second chance. The ploy also helps explain the mass construction/concentration of landing craft, which will be required for the landing in Latvia, and which, of course, will not go unnoticed to enemy spies.
LWD wrote:To do this they have to beleive that they can take out the French fairly quickly or use the craft in the East.
It's not the matter of a large blue water fleet, requiring years to build. We are talking about light landing craft, that can be mass produced since autumn of 1940.
LWD wrote:Why would you want to "declare the invasion".
The "cheese" should be visible, if we want the mouse to taste it, activating the trap. The Soviets must believe, that Germany is dead serious about the invasion. Only then will they do, what the Germans (in our planning) want them to do.
Churchill acknowledges, that a possibility of small scale local invasion always existed. So, the Germans could have tried it, evacuating the troops, once the Soviets attack.
LWD wrote:How can Germany get them to do this?
Generally speaking, there are two options: either the Soviets attack, or they do not. In the later case Germany loses nothing.
As far motivating the USSR to act, there are also two mechanisms:
- The first one, which has been already explained, is to influence the Soviet leadership by creating an illusion of an easy backstab opportunity, which they had missed in 1940.
- The second is to press the British government into coaxing the Soviets into the war. And that is the second aspect of the staged "invasion of Britain". When threatened with an invasion, Britain will try to build a continental coalition against the possible invader. So it was in the past, at least.
Very likely. Germany enjoyed a perfect railway system. Routinely transferring large masses of troops and equipment from the West to the East and vice versa was Germany's favorite trick during both world wars.LWD wrote:"Immediately" transferring the necessary forces is unlikely.
Adopting "Schlieffen plan" the Germans trade it for even a greater surprise - the ability to move from Latvia to Moscow without any resistance. Of course, the troops left to protect Central Europe from the Soviet attack will be forced to fight hard on defensive. But their actions will buy those forces, that land on the Baltic shore, a free passage to the Soviet heartland.steverodgers801 wrote:A huge advantage the Germans had was the surprise Stalin allowed.
I propose the following perimeter: Vistula (yes, half Poland is ceded), Slovakia, Carpathian mountains. Since in the reality the invasion was staged from the Rumanian territory as well, there will be no difficulty with obtaining the right of passage for the German army.steverodgers801 wrote:Forming a perimeter allows the Soviets to have territory instead of seizing their territory and if you are counting on the Romanian army to be of help you are sadly mistaken.
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
That assumes Stalin falls for it and acts quickly (if he delays much it will be obvious jow serious the Germans are). Nor does it appear that the Red army is ready for offensive action vs a foe with as strong an army as Germany at that point. Indeed the resuls in Finland rather indicate it's not. Also consider that the forces involved in SeaLion won't be huge by any means.Zart Arn wrote:...
The trick with "Sea Lion" is intended to tempt the Soviets into an aggression. They had lost the opportunity to surprise Germany from the rear once (May 1940) due to unexpectedly speedy fall of France. They long for such an occasion being offered again. The hoax with the invasion of Britain will give them an illusion of a second chance. The ploy also helps explain the mass construction/concentration of landing craft, which will be required for the landing in Latvia, and which, of course, will not go unnoticed to enemy spies.
NO. If they can't overcome the RN then Sea Lion isn't going to go. Light landing craft aren't going to be much more effective than the barges although they might get more trips out of them. Again they didn't expect France to fold as quickly as it did and if the French can establish a defensive line the land craft are a waste. You haven't suggested what you are willing to give up for them either.LWD wrote:To do this they have to beleive that they can take out the French fairly quickly or use the craft in the East.
It's not the matter of a large blue water fleet, requiring years to build. We are talking about light landing craft, that can be mass produced since autumn of 1940.
If the trap is obvious it's not a very good trap. If the forces involved are small then there is little incentive for the Red Army to attack. Don't forget the Soviets had the best intelligence apperatus of the war. And again the Red army wasn't ready for an offensive vs Germany in 1940 in any case. Maybe by 42 or maybe not.LWD wrote:Why would you want to "declare the invasion".
The "cheese" should be visible, if we want the mouse to taste it, activating the trap. The Soviets must believe, that Germany is dead serious about the invasion. Only then will they do, what the Germans (in our planning) want them to do.
Churchill acknowledges, that a possibility of small scale local invasion always existed. So, the Germans could have tried it, evacuating the troops, once the Soviets attack.
...
The German railway system was far from perfect especially the parts of it in the conquered Polish areas (there's a big thread on German railroads in the East on this forum you should read it). In any case moving a division is not something that you can do "immediately" it's going to take days at least.Very likely. Germany enjoyed a perfect railway system. Routinely transferring large masses of troops and equipment from the West to the East and vice versa was Germany's favorite trick during both world wars.LWD wrote:"Immediately" transferring the necessary forces is unlikely.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
What is the point of having the Soviets invading so Germany can lose territory?? The objective is to get territory. The Germans did have light landing craft, how ever the average wave height of the channel is greater then what their craft can handle. It took the allies two years to prepare for the invasion of Normandy why do you think the Germans could do it in a few months??? This is one of the biggest fantasies Ive seen and it accomplishes nothing but put Germany in a bad position.