Barbarossa sabotage plan

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by jesk » 09 Dec 2017 06:23

There is a version, Hitler wanted to lose the war, so that Europe would unite. As Lord Ismay said about the goals of creating NATO, "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... d-reversed

 Hitler thought so too. Therefore, he made hundreds of mistakes in military affairs. Europe united on the wreckage of Germany.
France lost the war in 1940. The question remains unclear, whether Hitler already planned the landing of Anglo-Americans in Normandy, or whether a quick defeat for him was unexpected. The territory of the USSR is much larger, Hitler accordingly has more opportunities to realize creative potential. As for the saboteur, it was required of him to develop such an offensive plan, so that the USSR would not fall apart as a result of the initial impulse, as happened with France.
Now will retreat a few years ago until 1941. In the armies of the world began to appear tank units. Further all in this question Germany has left. Not only divisions based on tanks were created, Hitler came up with tank groups. What is a tank group. A mixture of tank, motorized infantry, infantry divisions. All this is simplifiedly called "tanks". The point of formation of a tank group is that it is the same army, only better. Tanks are mobile, more aggressive. In a relatively new form of weapons tanks, Hitler saw the possibility of implementing the principle of "divide and conquer" in their own purposes. Often the interests of tanks he countered the infantry. This was first tested in Dunkirk, when the terrain was declared unsuitable for tanks. The beginning of the Battle of Kursk, Hitler postponed for 2 months because of the expectation of new tanks "tiger" and "panther". Without normal tanks, victory was not possible.

To prevent the rapid defeat of the USSR, Hitler used the sabotage weapon he created, a tank group. Wehrmacht he divided into 3 groups of armies, each important goal of the offensive - Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev. In the Moscow direction, the enemy's resistance was supposed to be particularly stubborn. In the army group "Center" Hitler placed two tank groups. One best army is attacking Kiev, one to Leningrad, two to Moscow. There was an occasion to link the success of the tasks with the presence of tank groups in the troops. What did Hitler do. Already on July 8 he expressed his intention to use tank groups on the flanks to solve the problems that had arisen there. The seizure of two tank groups from the Army Group "Center" reduced its firepower by 50%. Moscow the capital of the USSR, clear business was supposed to be taken by large forces. There was an occasion to suspend the offensive on Moscow for 2-3 months. Infantry armies concentrate near Smolensk, waiting for the release of tank groups.

What was further known. A week after the start of the Typhoon, an autumn mudslide occurred, then winter, to which the Wehrmacht for some reason was not prepared. In December 1941, Hitler announced that in 1942, only the Army Group "South" would advance. Together with the order, the troops did not retreat, hold on to every meter of the earth, he not only immobilized the troops near Leningrad and Moscow, did it gracefully, by deducing as many forces as possible. In the Demyan and Rzhev-Vyazma protrusions, the troops expected the offensive to come. In February-March 1943, after the reduction of the front there, 32 divisions were liberated on other sectors.
Last edited by jesk on 09 Dec 2017 08:18, edited 2 times in total.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by jesk » 09 Dec 2017 06:38

Generals in the summer of 1941 tried to object, the worse for them. As a result of the disputes, he forbade the 3 Hoth Tank Group to attack Leningrad. 4,9 army, 3 tank group expected release of 2 tank group Guderian from Ukraine.

http://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RR ... Keitel.pdf

Soon after our first victorious battles, however, the same old quarrels began to break out between Hitler and the War Office.Hitler's strategy varied from that propounded by the War Office. The latter had advocated that Army Group Centre should punch its way through with the aim of taking Moscow and capturing the Valdai heights to the north, thereby severing communications between Leningrad and the capital. Hitler wanted to hold back along a general line running from Odessa to Lake Peipus through Orel and Smolensk. Having done that he would draw off some of the strength from Army Group Centre (by far the most formidable and heavily armoured of the army groups) and use a reinforced Army Group South to deprive the enemy of the whole Donets basin, and of the Maikop and Krasnodar oil fields. Then he would seize Leningrad using a similarly reinforced Army Group North and link up with Finland. The latter two army groups would not have been strong enough to perform these tasks without reinforcement. Hitler visualised these targets on the flanks as being of great economic value in the case of the Donets basin, and of political and naval value in the case of Finland and the Baltic. From the point of view of military strategy, he was not so much concerned with the city of Leningrad as such, or with its world status as a city of a million inhabitants, as with the naval base at Kronstadt and its elimination as a key naval base - it presented a considerable threat to our communications and submarine training in the Baltic. The War Office, on the other hand, believed that in their proposal lay the key to a rapid termination of the war. The Fuhrer remained unconvinced. He decided to fly out to the headquarters of Army Group Centre (at Borisov) having summoned the commanders of two tank armies, Hoth and Guderian, to meet him there. I accompanied Hitler and took part in the ensuing conference between the commander-in-chief of Army Group Centre, von Bock, and the two tank generals, each of whom he [Hitler] wanted to siphon off to the neighbouring army groups as the first of the reinforcements. He came up against a blank wall of refusal, the two tank generals even going so far as to announce that their units were so battleweary that they would need two or three weeks to regroup and to overhaul their tanks before they would be fully operational again. Obviously we had no means of checking these claims. The two generals remained uncooperative - despite being awarded the Oak Leaves to their Knight's Crosses - and refused to admit any possibility of alternative employment for their units, at least not on such remote sections of the front. Von Bock naturally had no desire to lose them and trumpeted the same story. All three of them were aware of the War Office's plan of attack and saw it as their panacea; any weakening of Army Group Centre would jeopardise this plan, a plan which had electrified them all. Although the Fuhrer could see right through their ploy - no great feat - he hesitated to command the War Office to override their pleas and release the two tank generals as he had wanted, even though the period they were demanding for recuperation would delay his planned operation by some four weeks. The War Office, Army Group Centre and the tank commanders had managed to put up a united front to their Fuhrer. He was convinced they did not want to do it and had just claimed that they were not able to; that was what he himself told me at the time. Inwardly he was once again very annoyed at the War Office as a result of all this, but he managed to swallow his bitterness. There was a compromise, which, of course, shipwrecked Hitler's great strategic master plan, at any rate in so far as Leningrad to the north was concerned. Hitler for his part vetoed the attack on the Valdai heights as a typical example of the General Staff's obsolete "highground" tactics.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by jesk » 09 Dec 2017 07:34

On July 8, Hitler launched the sabotage mechanism laid down in the "Barbarossa" plan. After there were discussions, clarifications, but all this a derivative of the July 8 decision.

http://militera.lib.ru/db/0/pdf/halder_eng6.pdf

Image

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 2472
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by Kelvin » 10 Dec 2017 08:12

If I was Hitler, how about complete defeat of USSR and a united Europe under his Leadership is better option. Should Fortress Europe was not broken, Hitler already united Europe ( Germany, Austria, Czechoslavaka, France, Belgium, Netherland, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark,Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania, Lithuania, Latavia, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldovia) already under his direct control and Romania, Bulgaria,Hungary and Finland were her allies.
Hitler does not like USA and why he let US lead the united Europe. Why he united Europe on his own ? Why he think he cannot defeat USSR on his own and need a NATO to resist USSR ? This version is myth or impossible or joke.

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8071
Joined: 11 Nov 2004 12:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 10 Dec 2017 09:14

Bullshitbingo!

Should be moved to the 'What if' section....

Jan-Hendrik

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by jesk » 10 Dec 2017 11:32

What if, about sabotage. As part of the strategy to object there is nothing special. Hitler was wrong and made hundreds of erroneous decisions. HUNDREDS. In the topic of the speech on the strategy. Taking into account the sabotage, a logical picture is formed. Hitler was not a fool when he said that he needed the wheat of Ukraine and the oil fields of the Caucasus. Crimea is an aircraft carrier against Romanian oil. It is misinterpreted from the standpoint of the struggle of opposites.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by jesk » 10 Dec 2017 11:46

Kelvin wrote:If I was Hitler, how about complete defeat of USSR and a united Europe under his Leadership is better option. Should Fortress Europe was not broken, Hitler already united Europe ( Germany, Austria, Czechoslavaka, France, Belgium, Netherland, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark,Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania, Lithuania, Latavia, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldovia) already under his direct control and Romania, Bulgaria,Hungary and Finland were her allies.
Hitler does not like USA and why he let US lead the united Europe. Why he united Europe on his own ? Why he think he cannot defeat USSR on his own and need a NATO to resist USSR ? This version is myth or impossible or joke.
Your main argument, this is impossible, because it is impossible ever. Thousands of people during the war worked as enemy agents and spies. But why then Hitler with his mistakes in not suspicion.
Hitler in 1940 united Europe from a position of strength, on the principles of racism. People do not always say what they believe. Europe, headed by the democratic United States, is becoming the same. With high standards of democracy. The Soviet Union was needed as an additional threat. Without the Eastern bloc, the unification was not so strong. When the USSR was no more, the countries grew together from within. As the Germans sent troops to the front after they fused from the inside. People recognized each other, they got used to it.
The Soviet Union as a military force did not cost anything. Without Hitler, he fell apart in a month.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by jesk » 10 Dec 2017 16:54

German military thought. Material for scientific work.

Image

https://korrespondent.net/kyiv/1304520- ... goda-arhiv

Meanwhile the Wehrmacht even on the Kiev direction, where the Germans initially struck a secondary blow, already on July 11 by the forces of the First Tank Group Ewald von Kleist came to the Irpen River 15 kilometers west of the capital of Ukraine. This day historians consider the beginning of the Kiev defensive operation, which lasted 70 days.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by jesk » 18 Dec 2017 07:56

One problem, big problem in considering the war. The Germans can not critically examine the actions of the boss, he is like God for them. Memoirs of Manstein, Guderian with criticism of Hitler in them, are no more than an excuse for the criminal. It's like if someone killed a person in a peaceful life and instead of convicting a criminal, one hears only: he acted badly. And that's all? I am not a German and, unlike them, I can give an adequate assessment of Hitler's activity.

User avatar
Christoph Awender
Forum Staff
Posts: 6672
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 17:22
Location: Austria

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by Christoph Awender » 18 Dec 2017 13:08

Thank you Jesk... you opened my eyes.. everything fits now perfectly and makes sense..... oh my god our decades of researches were all for nothing and now I know the truth, Thanks!!!!

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by jesk » 18 Dec 2017 21:27

The main proof of a dishonest fight. As with the removal of Russia from the Olympics for doping. How much time and number of times a person in a dispute can impose their opinion, from which each time the damage. To not realize that it is his leadership that leads to defeat. And do not give up the right to make decisions to others.
It is believed Hitler was an idiot. For 3 years imposed 300 decisions and wanted more. He could not understand that he was leading the army badly and worse than the generals.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by jesk » 20 Dec 2017 22:10

The Germans could say to themselves, like the Japanese after the accident at the nuclear power plant. The traditions of obedience to the authorities dulled emotions, did not adequately assess the consequences of Hitler's leadership over the armed forces. The German mentality did not allow to stop Hitler, nor adequately assess his actions in the memoirs and historical works of German historians.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/ ... a-disaster

Japanese cultural traits 'at heart of Fukushima disaster'

Misplaced deference and other "ingrained conventions" of Japanese culture were at the heart of last year's meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, according to the chairman of an independent panel whose scathing report, released on Thursday, described the accident as a "profoundly man-made disaster".

In his combative preface to the report, Kiyoshi Kurokawa, a medical doctor and professor emeritus at Tokyo University, said the crisis was the result of "a multitude of errors and willful negligence", by the government, safety officials and the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco].

But behind the safety missteps and lack of readiness for a tsunami in a region known for powerful earthquakes, are cultural traits that ensured the disaster was "made in Japan", Kurokawa said.

"Its fundamental causes," he wrote, "are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to 'sticking with the programme'; our groupism; and our insularity.

"What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster 'Made in Japan'.

"Had other Japanese been in the shoes of those who bear responsibility for this accident, the result may well have been the same."

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2460
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Dec 2017 22:16

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by jesk » 20 Dec 2017 22:27

Richard Anderson, everyone should look at your smiles, not at my posts. Again, with your inappropriate commentary, you try to belittle my posts. In Shirer's " The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" similar thoughts. He also talked about the German mentality, which prevented the end of Hitler.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2460
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Barbarossa sabotage plan

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Dec 2017 22:45

Dude, I'm not smiling, I'm laughing...uncontrollably. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”