How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?
How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?
How did they manage to last this long? or you could put the question as why did it take the Russians over three years to get to Berlin.
By early 1942 Germany was more or less overstretched exposed and battered by the Russian winter with no realistic chance of regaining the initiative.
What measures did Germany take in order to make this happen? The third Reich seems to have expanded extremely quickly but very very slowly eroded away yet Hitler was not keen on defensive strategy? With Hitler always preferring offensive methods you would have though the third Reich would collapse very quickly?
By early 1942 Germany was more or less overstretched exposed and battered by the Russian winter with no realistic chance of regaining the initiative.
What measures did Germany take in order to make this happen? The third Reich seems to have expanded extremely quickly but very very slowly eroded away yet Hitler was not keen on defensive strategy? With Hitler always preferring offensive methods you would have though the third Reich would collapse very quickly?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
It is a false analogy and one close to the heart of those who believe in the innate superiority of the German military.David1819 wrote:How did they manage to last this long? or you could put the question as why did it take the Russians over three years to get to Berlin.
Germany was unquestionably running back by mid 1943 and beaten by the summer of 1944 and everything that happened in the last 9 months of the war was futile. I would go further and say insane. The result was a forgone conclusion and nothing could stave off the inevitable defeat. The lunatic who controlled things did not recognise this but then what do you expect from a madman?
Those who gape open mouthed at this collective madness and use it as a measure of military effectiveness are deluding themselves.
Also the Germans did not fight to the very end. Though the Battle For Berlin gets most of the publicity once Hitler was dead millions of German soldiers in functioning divisions (well over 100) simply laid down their arms. It was not a fight to the death/last bullet anyway.
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
propaganda, tactical and operational skills
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
I would also add that the total mobilization of the German population and economy post-Stalingrad certainly helped them postpone the end of the war. And let us not forget that by '42 the Germans had expanded their territory by a considerable amount, especially in Russia. They therefore could afford major losses of land without significant damage to their military power.Cult Icon wrote:propaganda, tactical and operational skills
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
People have to stop jumping to the idea that Hitler was a loonatic and madman. He wasn't, Believing him insane is just an easy way for people to understand what they cannot or do not wish contemplate.Michael Kenny wrote: Germany was unquestionably running back by mid 1943 and beaten by the summer of 1944 and everything that happened in the last 9 months of the war was futile. I would go further and say insane. The result was a forgone conclusion and nothing could stave off the inevitable defeat. The lunatic who controlled things did not recognise this but then what do you expect from a madman?.
Richard Evans makes a good point here, link below
https://youtu.be/IaWTDzR1mRI?t=43m10s
How did they have millions of Soldiers with over 100 operational divisions?Michael Kenny wrote: Those who gape open mouthed at this collective madness and use it as a measure of military effectiveness are deluding themselves.
Also the Germans did not fight to the very end. Though the Battle For Berlin gets most of the publicity once Hitler was dead millions of German soldiers in functioning divisions (well over 100) simply laid down their arms. It was not a fight to the death/last bullet anyway.
If that was the case why was the Battle of Berlin being fought with large quantities of Hitler youth and old aged men whilst millions of troops elsewhere? I thought the offensive at the bulge in 1944 was the last punch the Germans could throw?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
So who was moving all those paper Armies around to come and relieve Berlin? I was skimming through 'In Good Faith' last night reading about cows being pressed into service to tow AT guns (page 464) and Steiner searching for a reliable unit (469-70) he could send into Berlin to arrest Hitler and end the madness.David1819 wrote:
People have to stop jumping to the idea that Hitler was a loonatic and madman. He wasn't, Believing him insane is just an easy way for people to understand what they cannot or do not wish contemplate.
Hitler was a nut case.
You labour under quite a few misconceptions.David1819 wrote: If that was the case why was the Battle of Berlin being fought with large quantities of Hitler youth and old aged men whilst millions of troops elsewhere? I thought the offensive at the bulge in 1944 was the last punch the Germans could throw?
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
I would say the appointment of Albert Speer as Minister of Armaments in Feb 1942 had much to do with Germany's ability to continue to wage war.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
the Germans had already started reforms before speer took over. The simple reason is it took time for the allies to build up enough strength and in the Americans case to send it over seas, while fighting the Japanese at the same time
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
Operation Barbarossa lasted from June 22nd to December 5th 1941 - 5 months and 2 weeks in duration.
The Germans then continued to have the upper hand right up until 19th November 1942 when the Soviet launched their offensives either side of Stalingrad (another additional 11 months and 2 weeks from the end of Barbarossa).
The Soviets then largely had the initiative from 19th November 1942 to 8th May 1945 (a period of 2 years, 5 months and 3 weeks) but only went onto the offensive during a summer campaign once Operation Citadel had shot it's bolt in August 1943. So from that point onwards they lasted less than 2 years which is actually unimpressive.
So in summary the Germans had the strategic summer campaigning initiative from 22nd June 1941 to 5th July 1943 (2 years and 2 weeks). The Soviets then had the summer initiative from then on till the end of the war (1 year, 9 months and 2 weeks). In other words the Soviets spent less time covering more territory (due to the Red Army advancing westwards beyond the German's starting positions in June 1941) when they had the strategic initiative than the Germans did.
Once the tide turned the Soviets were like a coiled spring and the defensive German military performance was actually quite poor overall (partly due to Hitler's poor strategy and to being simply outnumbered in the field).
The Germans then continued to have the upper hand right up until 19th November 1942 when the Soviet launched their offensives either side of Stalingrad (another additional 11 months and 2 weeks from the end of Barbarossa).
The Soviets then largely had the initiative from 19th November 1942 to 8th May 1945 (a period of 2 years, 5 months and 3 weeks) but only went onto the offensive during a summer campaign once Operation Citadel had shot it's bolt in August 1943. So from that point onwards they lasted less than 2 years which is actually unimpressive.
So in summary the Germans had the strategic summer campaigning initiative from 22nd June 1941 to 5th July 1943 (2 years and 2 weeks). The Soviets then had the summer initiative from then on till the end of the war (1 year, 9 months and 2 weeks). In other words the Soviets spent less time covering more territory (due to the Red Army advancing westwards beyond the German's starting positions in June 1941) when they had the strategic initiative than the Germans did.
Once the tide turned the Soviets were like a coiled spring and the defensive German military performance was actually quite poor overall (partly due to Hitler's poor strategy and to being simply outnumbered in the field).
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
Being faced with Unconditional Surrender and the Morgenthau plan and the well known niceties of Stalin and the Commissars of Soviet Russian Army., Germany had no choice but to fight to end.
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
Noooo, Speer again...Flint wrote:I would say the appointment of Albert Speer as Minister of Armaments in Feb 1942 had much to do with Germany's ability to continue to wage war.
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
Hi
For example, the Soviet recovery of territory after Kursk began west of the furthest limit of Barbarossa (or the Stalingrad offensive for that matter). You have not even shown at what stage the Soviets reached Germany's starting position in June 1941.
The observation still remains that it took the Soviets over 3 years to stop the German invasion, turn it around and recover all their lost territory.
The Soviet army pretty well increased in strength (personnel strength of effectives) each year from 1941 and reached it's peak in July 1943 (about 2.5 times its strength at the start of Barbarossa), after which it was fairly constant till the war ended. The German Army at its peak (which is also in 1943) increased by something like only 30% compared to the start of Barbarossa. By which time Germany was sharing these limited resources on multiple fronts. This makes it harder to do a fair comparison of relative performance and claim that the Germans defence in the East was quite poor.
Dennis
We all know that the Soviets launched winter offensives and launched counter-offensives against each German summer operation. Recovering ground in the process. So why this focus on only the summer campaigns?ChrisDR68 wrote: Operation Barbarossa lasted from June 22nd to December 5th 1941 - 5 months and 2 weeks in duration.
The Germans then continued to have the upper hand right up until 19th November 1942 when the Soviet launched their offensives either side of Stalingrad (another additional 11 months and 2 weeks from the end of Barbarossa).
The Soviets then largely had the initiative from 19th November 1942 to 8th May 1945 (a period of 2 years, 5 months and 3 weeks) but only went onto the offensive during a summer campaign once Operation Citadel had shot it's bolt in August 1943. So from that point onwards they lasted less than 2 years which is actually unimpressive.
You have not shown that the "Soviets spent less time covering more territory (due to the Red Army advancing westwards beyond the German's starting positions in June 1941) when they had the strategic initiative than the Germans did".ChrisDR68 wrote: So in summary the Germans had the strategic summer campaigning initiative from 22nd June 1941 to 5th July 1943 (2 years and 2 weeks). The Soviets then had the summer initiative from then on till the end of the war (1 year, 9 months and 2 weeks). In other words the Soviets spent less time covering more territory (due to the Red Army advancing westwards beyond the German's starting positions in June 1941) when they had the strategic initiative than the Germans did.
For example, the Soviet recovery of territory after Kursk began west of the furthest limit of Barbarossa (or the Stalingrad offensive for that matter). You have not even shown at what stage the Soviets reached Germany's starting position in June 1941.
The observation still remains that it took the Soviets over 3 years to stop the German invasion, turn it around and recover all their lost territory.
I am not convinced by your figures that the German defence was, "quite poor".ChrisDR68 wrote: Once the tide turned the Soviets were like a coiled spring and the defensive German military performance was actually quite poor overall (partly due to Hitler's poor strategy and to being simply outnumbered in the field).
The Soviet army pretty well increased in strength (personnel strength of effectives) each year from 1941 and reached it's peak in July 1943 (about 2.5 times its strength at the start of Barbarossa), after which it was fairly constant till the war ended. The German Army at its peak (which is also in 1943) increased by something like only 30% compared to the start of Barbarossa. By which time Germany was sharing these limited resources on multiple fronts. This makes it harder to do a fair comparison of relative performance and claim that the Germans defence in the East was quite poor.
Dennis
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
Why not compare the German attempt to take the Soviet capital with the Soviet attempt to take the German capital?
Who performed better in that area ?
Who performed better in that area ?
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
If I were you I would not enter that discussion. The germans could not take Moscow, period. They were in no shape to fight such an offensive at the end of 1941. But Hitler, a corporal, would not listen to his generals. Having said that, the Red Army was in it's best moment in April 1945, fighting an army of mostly old soldiers and teenagers, with a huge advantage in men and equipment, and yet they had more than 80 thouzands dead and close to three hundred thouzands wounded. Not other army in WWII could afford to have vistories after victories with the amount of casualties that the Red Army sustained, but their leaders would not care less as long as they gained real state.
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
Poor performance by the Soviet military at every level plus their main weapon systems were mediocre (if not outright dangerous to their crews…) and had huge reliability issues.David1819 wrote:How did they manage to last this long? or you could put the question as why did it take the Russians over three years to get to Berlin.
By early 1942 Germany was more or less overstretched exposed and battered by the Russian winter with no realistic chance of regaining the initiative.
What measures did Germany take in order to make this happen? The third Reich seems to have expanded extremely quickly but very very slowly eroded away yet Hitler was not keen on defensive strategy? With Hitler always preferring offensive methods you would have though the third Reich would collapse very quickly?
I guess it’s not a popular opinion but if you look at the force discrepancies at every level (troops, tanks, aircraft) you realize that if both forces were equally capable the Germans would have been crushed in 1942-43.
Truth be told similar problems affected the US and UK militaries which is why WWII took so long to end.
A simple economist with an unhealthy interest in military and intelligence history.....
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/