Hitler's Barbarossa

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today.
MarkN
Member
Posts: 1151
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby MarkN » 05 Jun 2018 09:36

Konig_pilsner wrote:Well so far I am pretty underwhelmed by the responses, ...

Well, it seems nobody has the same level of talent, creativity and desire as you in reinventing history to make Hitler out as a strategic genius. :roll:

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 19 Dec 2003 07:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby Konig_pilsner » 05 Jun 2018 16:09

Hehe, that was funny.

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3448
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby BDV » 08 Jun 2018 02:00

The issue is that as ljadw put it many times, in Nazi calculations Soviet Union needs to collapse quickly because the 200 division WAlly force is coming in '43 at the latest.

So the panzerjockeys might've stepped outside the written letter of Directive 21, but with a "good" goal - bring Sovjetunion down with daring deep strikes.

Not to mention that Directive 21 was itself full of schwaizer sized holes.
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

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby Paul Lakowski » 08 Jun 2018 03:31

Konig_pilsner wrote: As the years pass Hitler's decisions early in the war, (Ukraine, no retreat from Moscow, Blau) become more accepted as the right ones, so what if his strategy had been implemented from the onset of the campaign?



Is that true? Do we now all generally accept that Hitler's decisions were the right ones?

Baldir
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 28 Jul 2016 10:13
Location: Slovenia

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby Baldir » 08 Jun 2018 12:20

''Is that true? Do we now all generally accept that Hitler's decisions were the right ones?''

Some were right, some were wrong.

Nevertheless, his decisions, except those at the end of the war, were usually quite logical. Even if today they seem to be bad, at the time, considering what intel and advice he had, they were logical. After WWI, 'stab in the back' myth arose in Germany and similary, after the WWII (mostly) generals created myth 'it's Hitlers fault'.

The problem with war in Russia is that not only Hitler, but everybody (USA, german generals, even Stalin himself) hugely underestimated SU. It was war of attrition, you can not win such war in Napoleon style 'move that unit left and other one right'. It was a question who would bleed out first. You can not win without making radical changes (finish war in the west first, change attitude toward population etc.). Of course, altering some(bad) decisions could certainly help, but we can only guess how much it would protract the war, the result would be the same.

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 19 Dec 2003 07:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby Konig_pilsner » 11 Jun 2018 14:33

The issue is that as ljadw put it many times, in Nazi calculations Soviet Union needs to collapse quickly because the 200 division WAlly force is coming in '43 at the latest.


If the Americans would be coming in 1943, then you would assume the Germans would need their army back from the east in 1943, not the fall of 1941 right? Or was it the embargo and economical collapse that spurred the decision for a quick invasion? If it is the latter the war can continue for two years, but resource exploitation would need to occur rapidly.

The agriculture of Ukraine, the iron ore of the Crimea, the oil of the Caucasus, are all on a southern trajectory. To take it all in a single year would require a complete collapse of the Russian state. If the state continues to resist as it did historically, as long as the above areas are under German control quickly they can be exploited while the war in the east continues. With AGS getting priority it might have been possible for the army group to get past the Donetz and even to the Don an 1941. Holding these areas through out the winter puts them in a much better position to seize the Caucasus in 1942.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 8326
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby ljadw » 11 Jun 2018 18:45

The economical exploitation of the occupied territories of the USSR was ,for the WWII period,outside Germany's capacities .It would take at least one generation before Germany would see the first results,it would also not help Germany ,Germany did also not need the oil from the Caucasus nor the grain from Ukraine .
There were in 1943 4795 non-military transports from the East to the Reich, but also 4037 from the Reich to the East . This was something Germany could not afford .

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby Paul Lakowski » 11 Jun 2018 19:02

As I recall by the end of the war the Nazi were adding ~ 3/4 of the French prewar GDP- to there 'budget'.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 1772
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: My Generals Do Not Understand Economics.

Postby Robert Rojas » 12 Jun 2018 06:53

Greetings to both cousin Koenig_Pilsner and the community as a whole. Howdy K.P.! Well sir, in light of your introductory posting of Thursday - May 17, 2018 - 9:22pm, old yours truly finds myself in general agreement with citizen sitalkes strategic point OR points-of-view as articulated within his sage installment of Sunday - June 03, 2018 - 9:22pm. The Soviet Union's access to petroleum must either be physically interdicted or denied outright at its source in Azerbaijan. As long as Soviet industry has access to the life blood of the Industrial Revolution, then the WAR IN THE EAST will grind on for perpetuity. I would also entertain the thought of an incremental two year campaign. The projected nine month campaign is clearly too ambitious given the vast geographic distances involved and the herculean demands placed upon the Wehrmacht's logistical system. Then there is that not so inconsequential seasonal event known to all as the rasputitsa which requires no special introduction. Finally, there is the thorny matter of political objectives. Now, I am not exactly a big fan of prestige targets, but the assault AND storming of the City of Leningrad would serve a twofold mission. First of all, it would bolster the overland line of communication between Finland and Army Group North and second of all, the capture of the Cradle of the Bolshevik Revolution would appease the Golden Pheasantry of National Socialism. As for Moscow, I would not be bothered with it. Those forces allocated for a potential assault on Moscow would be better served for the projected operations aimed at Transcaucasia. On a purely incidental matter, given the rancor that I've seen throughout the course of this topic, I am rather surprised that this thread has not been locked. Like Heinz Guderian and Gunter von Kluge, I am also rather surprised that a few of you have not challenged each other to a good old fashioned duel. Well, that's my initial two cents of pfennigs worth on this hypothetical topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you a copacetic day up in your particular corner of the GREAT WHITE NORTH of Canada - EH!?


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
Last edited by Robert Rojas on 12 Jun 2018 23:59, edited 1 time in total.
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby thaddeus_c » 12 Jun 2018 23:50

sitalkes wrote:I don't see Hitler's strategy working unless he can take the oilfields, or at least block access to them. Otherwise you have the situation that happened in real life, where the vital economic regions were occupied (but new ones built) and not the political centres - and war is politics by another means. You need to take Moscow or at least Leningrad for a political result and not a war of attrition. A two year strategy - Leningrad 41, Moscow 42 would be more likely to succeed.


Germany was able to force a military defeat and political settlement on France without trying to occupy the entire country, my understanding so that French were able to retain control of their empire? and they were able to extract huge resources and monies from them.

other than crazed genocidal reasons why not attempt a repeat over USSR, smash as much of their military as possible instead of moving to occupy a continent sized country?

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 1772
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: My Generals Do Not Understand Economics.

Postby Robert Rojas » 13 Jun 2018 02:58

Greetings to both citizen Thaddeus_c and the community as a whole. Howdy Thaddeus (or Thad if you so prefer)! Well sir, in light of your installment of Tuesday - June 12, 2018 - 2:50pm, it is NOT my intent to speak for citizen sitalkes, but I have reason to believe that you might be reading more into his commentary than what actually exits in reality. It has always been "understanding" that is was never the intention of National Socialist Germany to conquer the Eurasian landmass of the greater Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The geopolitical aims of the all knowing Bohemian Corporal were ostensibly limited to the conquest and subjugation of those regions of the western Soviet Union that could provide the requisite agricultural, mineral and petroleum needs for National Socialist Germany's economic independence. Fall Barbarossa's projected operational stop and territorial demarcation line would be the ever fabled Astrakhan-Archangelsk line which fell very short of the Ural Mountain Range. Generally speaking, what Adolf Hitler initially did in France is what he is also attempting to accomplish in Koba The Terrible's Worker's Paradise - only on a much grander scale. I'll leave the whole sordid issue of Der Fuhrer's eugenic policies for another day. Well, that's my latest two cents, pfennigs or kopecks worth on this hypothetical topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you a copacetic day no matter where you might just happen to find yourself on Terra Firma.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: RE: My Generals Do Not Understand Economics.

Postby thaddeus_c » 14 Jun 2018 01:25

Robert Rojas wrote:Greetings to both citizen Thaddeus_c and the community as a whole. Howdy Thaddeus (or Thad if you so prefer)! Well sir, in light of your installment of Tuesday - June 12, 2018 - 2:50pm, it is NOT my intent to speak for citizen sitalkes, but I have reason to believe that you might be reading more into his commentary than what actually exits in reality. It has always been "understanding" that is was never the intention of National Socialist Germany to conquer the Eurasian landmass of the greater Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The geopolitical aims of the all knowing Bohemian Corporal were ostensibly limited to the conquest and subjugation of those regions of the western Soviet Union that could provide the requisite agricultural, mineral and petroleum needs for National Socialist Germany's economic independence. Fall Barbarossa's projected operational stop and territorial demarcation line would be the ever fabled Astrakhan-Archangelsk line which fell very short of the Ural Mountain Range. Generally speaking, what Adolf Hitler initially did in France is what he is also attempting to accomplish in Koba The Terrible's Worker's Paradise - only on a much grander scale. I'll leave the whole sordid issue of Der Fuhrer's eugenic policies for another day. Well, that's my latest two cents, pfennigs or kopecks worth on this hypothetical topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you a copacetic day no matter where you might just happen to find yourself on Terra Firma.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|


was trying to agree with sitetalks, am sorry if my post was not clear. believe they needed to force a settlement on the Soviets, and citing the Vichy regime as example.

barring that deal as much of crippling blow as possible. if not used as artillery, transport , and any other chore? the LW might have continued to reduce Soviet air force? they had intel on aircraft engine plants that would have crippled production for example.

quite frankly, the oilfields they could have seized ... were in Romania. they only ever got half the production and had to barter for that. a cynical plan would march their army off to Odessa and once decimated seized their resources. the odds are much better than Baku.

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 19 Dec 2003 07:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby Konig_pilsner » 14 Jun 2018 16:42

Good to see you back Uncle Bob!

I understand everyone has a different outlook on how Barbarossa could be improved, but for the purpose of this thread I am interested in the advantages/disadvantages of pursuing a southern strategy. Everything the Russians had moved through Moscow, which made its approaches easy to reinforce and coordinate. It is a different story in places like Kalinin, Kharkov or Rostov.

If German forces reach Voronezh on the Don it becomes extremely difficult for the Russians to provide any reinforcements to Rostov, which is the key to any axis attack in the Caucasus. Getting to Voronezh and holding it are different matters, but that is the point of this what if.

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3448
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby BDV » 19 Jun 2018 16:18

Konig_pilsner wrote:but for the purpose of this thread I am interested in the advantages/disadvantages of pursuing a southern strategy.


What is the POD and the difference in Axis actions and Soviet reaction.


If German forces reach Voronezh on the Don it becomes extremely difficult for the Russians to provide any reinforcements to Rostov, which is the key to any axis attack in the Caucasus. Getting to Voronezh and holding it are different matters, but that is the point of this what if.


Troops pouring out of the Moscow and Leningrad concentration centers would keep hammering the Pskov-(Smolensk?-Oryol?)-Voronezh line.

P.S. save for the (in hindsight disastrous) improvisation of July 10 - July 15 in the AGC-AGN seam what transpired prior to August 1st WAS Hitler's Barbarossa.
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

glenn239
Member
Posts: 4564
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Hitler's Barbarossa

Postby glenn239 » 19 Jun 2018 17:34

wm wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:In many ways, Germany was better off with Russia exporting masses of raw materials to them than fighting a war with Russia.

To buy masses of raw materials they needed lots of money - and they didn't have any, their money was worthless outside Germany. They bartered goods (like cruisers) they badly needed themselves.


How many million tons of oil and grain do you imagine it was worth to Stalin to be able to annex Finland and occupy the Straights?


Return to “What if”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]