Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
David1819
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 08 Jun 2014 00:47

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by David1819 » 22 May 2018 20:27

AbollonPolweder wrote:
In my opinion, if Hitler listened to his generals and pushed all the way onto Moscow, successfully captures it and then proceed to swing around North and South to divide Russia into different parts will have probably won the Eastern front.
Good premiss: if Hitler ...! But he did not.
Why do you think that is a good idea?

Army Group Centre take Moscow. With Russian winter and the southwestern and siberian divisions of the Red Army close by. They could suffer the same fate as the 6th Army at Stalingrad.

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3510
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by BDV » 23 May 2018 21:23

For Barbarossa failure it would be GROFAZ that could just as well say: "if only the generals"

The fine scrambling done to the (already shaky)
Directive 21, by panzerjockeys, between July 5 and 15 is the stuff of legends.
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
victor82
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 20 Sep 2009 22:22
Location: Florida

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by victor82 » 17 Jun 2018 04:34

A praiseworthy post. A few comments:
steevh wrote:Back to the original question, not sure what people have said before, but for the Germans to have won the war, I would say they needed some or all of the following:

1. More incompetence on the Soviet side. The reason they did as well as they did in the opening stages of Barbarossa was sheer Soviet incompetence, at all levels. The Russians had almost 10 times as many tanks as the Germans, for starters.

Most people don’t realize that Soviet staff work was generally pretty good, as long a Joe could be convinced to let the Professionals handle things. It was fortunate for the Wehrmacht that they caught the Russians when they did, as the Red Army was in the middle of a major reorganization along the lines recommending by Tukhachevsky, who had been executed during the Purges several years before. The disasters we did see in the early days can basically be left at Stalin’s doorstep, although it should be noted that the Encirclement Battles eventually wore down the Panzerwaffen as the fresh armies were being assembled just west of Moscow.

2. Supporting invasion by the Japanese to tie down the eastern troops that were shifted to defend Moscow.

This was never going to happen. Japan’s aim, which it could have achieved short of war by coming to a political understanding with the Wallies over the Southern Resources Area and China, was to achieve economic self-sufficiency and security by obtaining a secure resource base in the South Seas. Attacking Siberia would solve none of those problems.


3. Switch to a total war economy well before 1943. Clearly, 1941 or earlier would have been best.

This is the key get: National Socialist Germany was always more sensitive towards public opinion than, say, British leaders were wrt sacrifices. Churchill and FDR immediately mobilized to engage in a war economy. Hitler did not, and so shortly after Minsk, the Center Panzer groups start running low on supplies. Shrewd German leadership would have mobilized for war in 1940.

4. Start the invasion earlier. The Yugoslavia/Greece campaign meant that the bad weather kicked in just as they were within striking distance of Moscow. Another two weeks or a month and they could have been 20 miles east, not west of Moscow when the weather went to hell.

This would have involved sitting Mussolini down and giving him more to do in North Africa, while being willing to tolerate some Deviationism in Yugoslavia, so long as they are not openly hostile. This would have required extra work from Ribbentrop, who at the time was busy trying to dissuade Hitler from going ahead with BARBAROSSA. As to the relative position of the German armies that winter, that depended less on when the Army kicked off the campaign than what Hitler decided the war aims were. Remember, it was he who decided to turn south to the Ukraine in mid July because of his obsession with the Donbas and Kleist’s problems with Budenny.


With some or all of the above its quite easy to envisage Leningrad and Moscow falling, which might not have ended the war, but would certainly have greatly improved the Germans' chances.
Much easier said than done, especially with Hitler around to muck things up.

Lucien von Wilhelm
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 09 Aug 2014 21:54

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by Lucien von Wilhelm » 18 Jun 2018 20:00

Is there a thread discussing the merit (if any) had Hitler delayed his invasion of Russia?

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by AbollonPolweder » 05 Jul 2018 16:09

David1819 wrote:
Why do you think that is a good idea?
Army Group Centre take Moscow.
"...take Moscow..." At what time? In september? There is no winter in sept. in Russia.
Therefore railway hub (Moscow) is lost. The conditions to prepare "Stalingrag" get down abruptly. Shortly to say - no chance.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by doogal » 22 Jul 2018 14:34

I fail to see how Germany could have won on the Eastern Front.

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3510
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by BDV » 24 Jul 2018 22:33

AbollonPolweder wrote:
05 Jul 2018 16:09
"...take Moscow..." At what time? In september? There is no winter in sept. in Russia.
Therefore railway hub (Moscow) is lost. The conditions to prepare "Stalingrag" get down abruptly. Shortly to say - no chance.
What proof, beyond unsubstantiated sayso of defeated generals, is there that Germans could take Moscow in September? Logistical chain to AGC area was not fixed by December, how could an assault on Moscow be supplied in September?
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
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by AbollonPolweder » 26 Jul 2018 16:55

BDV wrote:
24 Jul 2018 22:33
What proof, beyond unsubstantiated sayso of defeated generals, is there that Germans could take Moscow in September? Logistical chain to AGC area was not fixed by December, how could an assault on Moscow be supplied in September?
"b) Eckstein reports heavy requests for ammunition from AGp.
Center. Pield Marshal yon Bock ,who has "been looking into
the ammunition question, himself; thinks Hq, Finth Army
too easily upset. Army Gp. expects to replenish the
first issue of ammunition "by tomorrow or the day after.
Only after that can they think of stockpiling. If railroad
service to AGp. Center remains as it is now, we
can meet current demands, "but cannot accumulate reserve
ammunition.
It was written by Halder 31 July 1941. Wehrmacht had problems with supplying at that time. But! Guderian wrote, that he was ready to pusch toward Moscow 20 august and Hoth - 15. Instead "swift Heinz" turned around south and "took" Kiev having bad logistical chain! :( Then he turned around again and moved to Moscow. What a beautiful exercize! :o Should I speak about
supplying shortage one more time?
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by gracie4241 » 05 Aug 2018 15:39

Why so many still believe in the Myth that if only Hitler had listened to his generals he would have won after all. It was created after all by those same generals-AFTER the war- even though if lazy historians had looked harder they would often find they said things DIFFERENTLY during the war. The drive to Moscow in hopes of achieving "decisive battle" advocated by Halder was an attempt at a Sedan of 1870, and was totally flawed , not least because of a gross underestimate of the remaining soviet forces and their force regeneration capability. Hitler was in fact right all along, and victory lay in destroying the Soviet economy and capacity for war by depriving them of the raw materials basis for same, " In short, the "southern Strategy epitomized by Operation Blau-with one MAJOR change. By completing phase 3 of Blau as planned with a concentric attack toward the Volga crossings by BOTH army Group A and B and establishing a river based defense line creating a "roof" over the Caucasus ,along with the already completed conquest of the Ukraine, Hitler would in effect have created an "interior blockade" depriving Stalin of 70% of his coal, 85-90% of his oil, 50-60% of his agriculture(ie food) and significant amounts of his iron, manganese etc. He was KAPUTT, especially because by NOT overextending INTO the Caucasus he had the frontage and the forces to repel any counterattack. Who says they would be kaput? Try an expert.....Joseph Stalin!!! In his prologue to Basic Order 229 of July 27,1942{no step back}-apparently written by him personally, Stalin said that the actual and threatened loss of their Raw material base would have fatal consequences(he never said that about Moscow BTW}. In this case Hitlers focus was correct(om economic factors), but fatally splitting A and B AG and overextending into the Caucasus led to disaster

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by AbollonPolweder » 10 Aug 2018 17:32

gracie4241 wrote:
05 Aug 2018 15:39
The drive to Moscow in hopes of achieving "decisive battle" advocated by Halder was an attempt at a Sedan of 1870, and was totally flawed , not least because of a gross underestimate of the remaining soviet forces and their force regeneration capability.
I assume that the main reason for the failure of the "Sedan 1941" was in the dispersion of Hitler's forces in the summer-autumn campaigns of 1941.( Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev) Don't forget that Hitler was planning Barbarossa like a blitzkrieg. It was about months to go. Wasn't it?
Hitler was in fact right all along, and victory lay in destroying the Soviet economy and capacity for war by depriving them of the raw materials basis for same
Wouldn't you agree that the destruction of the economy of a country like the Soviet Union demanded any war, but blitzkrieg. Stalin in 1941-42 defended his main basis. Read about the defensive operations near Rzhev in 1941 and 1942 (Mars) under Zhukov's command . In both cases, such a "main basis" for Stalin was Moscow.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by gracie4241 » 10 Aug 2018 19:51

Except that Stalin PUBLICLY said to his people(july 27,1942) that the loss of the Ukraine AND the Caucasus(by conquest or blockade) would FATALLY reduce the raw material basis of their war effort as BLAU was at high tide.Think we should give him some benefit of knowing his own position, don't you? The Sedan point was meant to reference the guiding premise of orthodox german army doctrine which was to seek "DECISIVE BATTLE " with an enemies main forces. Halder et al tried to sell this to Hitler on the express premise that defense of their capitol would require the RUSSIANS to commit the bulk "of their remaining reserves" and allow them to destroy those forces in a decisive battle .This of course ASSUMED (obviously wrongly) that the actual SIZE of those forces were 1 known( which they weren't) and 2 they couldn't be replaced. In fact TYPHOON did a GREAT job of destroying the Russian forces defending Moscow-But they could and DID replace them thereby invalidating the core assumption. On the other hand, even though armies can be replaced, and factories disassembled and relocated, wheat fields, coal mines , oil fields etc CANNOT be moved or replaced. Hitler was 100% right that his generals knew or cared nothing about economics, but in 20th century warfare economics makes all the difference in anything but a very short war(which because of Russia's size was inherently impossible)the hurdle here is coming to grips with the fact that Hitler, and NOT his generals was right

ljadw
Member
Posts: 8616
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by ljadw » 10 Aug 2018 20:08

The fall of the Caucasus would not deprive Stalin of 85/90 % of his oil;the fall of the Caucasus would hurt the SU, but the German economic experts had warned for the illusion that the fall of the Caucasus would result in the fall of the SU .

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by AbollonPolweder » 11 Aug 2018 14:07

gracie4241 wrote:
10 Aug 2018 19:51
Except that Stalin PUBLICLY said to his people(july 27,1942) that the loss of the Ukraine AND the Caucasus(by conquest or blockade) would FATALLY reduce the raw material basis of their war effort as BLAU was at high tide.Think we should give him some benefit of knowing his own position, don't you?
Ofcourse, Stalin knew his own position! But who said that he manifested publicly his real position? Du you think he was a dolt or truth-speaker? :) Watch his real doing not his publicly speaking!
... the hurdle here is coming to grips with the fact that Hitler, and NOT his generals was right
Hitler was right ... theoretically, but in that particular situation of summer-autumn-41 was right, very likely, Halder. Hitler, thanks to the victories of his generals, became impudent and decided that he would always "play white figures", that is, have the initiative. To humiliate the military and neutralize their military achievements, he began to teach them the basics of Economics and as a result received a counteroffensive by Moscow. This is an indisputable fact, I agree.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

ljadw
Member
Posts: 8616
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by ljadw » 11 Aug 2018 14:29

There was no fundamental opposition between the generals and Hitler :both agreed on the principle of Taifun,but,as Taifun was out of the question in August and as it was out of the question to wast valuable time by doing nothing til taifun was possible, .......

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Post by gracie4241 » 11 Aug 2018 17:01

Again you're assuming a caricature of Hitler-'teaching his generals about economics"-HUH? The ENTIRE BASIS OF HITLERS PROGRAM was based on economics. The argument for "LEBENSRAUM" was that Germany needed additional raw materials and agricultural resources to maintain itself as a great economic and military power, was clearly stated in Mein Kampf long before Hitler ever heard of or cared about Franz Halder. The root need of Barborossa was for Germany to broaden its economic base and acquire the resources needed to fight a long war against TWO world Empires(as he called the UK and USA).Economics was thus CENTRAL to the objectives of Barborossa, and became MORE CENTRAL when it appeared obvious in July 1941 that the moronic Halder and army intelligence had GROSSLY underestimated the Red Army. Thus VICTORY looked less likely on a strict military plane( ie destroying armies etc) than on destroying the root of Soviet Power, its surprising industrial strength .As I mentioned before, factories can-and were transported, but wheat and oil fields, coal, iron and manganese mines etc COULD NOT BE.In industrial age war this should have been obvious ,but the VERY limited intellectually generals (ie Halder, Brauchitsch, Bock et al) were old school Wilhelmine officers and flatly didn't understand any of this .Hitler's mistake in my view was in not firing them earlier, and apparently being talked into repositioning back to Army Group Center Guderian's panzer Group instead of leaving it in the South along with Kleist's panzer group to pursue further into the Ukraine in 1941(ie his southern strategy of Blau in 42) .As it transpired Guderian was at the VERY far right(south) of Typhoon and never got closer than a 125-50 miles from Moscow, being sort of tangential largely to the offensive.This continuing obeiscance to "Generals" like Halder mystify me; he was the epitome of a desk bound mediocrity

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”