Different German Oil Strategy

[jesk]

Answering Jesk about the Hitler being a Soviet agent:

I have seen many weird things in history, so I would not discredit completely even that assumption. But I got to tell you, this is highly unlikely.
This account almost for Stalin giving a gun to a stranger put in the back of his head.
Hitler was an Austrian, he fought WWI, he had a background. How would you trust something like the German Military power to just a person, an agent? Even trusting Sorge it took the Soviets many time, as initially they considered him not trustable.

Even so, Hitler pointed the gun and reached almost Moscow. It was not an easy thing reaching that far in Russia. Still, there was a precedent invasion developed in the same way. The Napoleon`s one...

You can argue that Napoleon himself was an agent of the Russian Empire. But what would be the mathematic probability of having two narcissistic disordered, low stature megalomaniacs working as agents for Russia?

The wars in 1812 were primitive. In the battle of Borodino in the area a few hectares per day killed 100,000 Russians and French. In 1941, there are many more opportunities for a maneuver war. The Germans captured millions of Russians, bearing minimal losses.
Hitler did wrong. I have not been interested in talking seriously about stupid things since that time. Hitler's errors in practice are sabotage, rather primitive.

I did not write about the Soviet agent. Stalin needed him as a scarecrow, for protection from which Europeans led by the United States will unite. Hitler was an agent of the European Union. He dreamed of a democratic Europe with a single European currency.

Hitler kids

[ljadw]

Barbarossa was not delayed to May 15: when the decision was taken to invade Yugoslavia, there was still no date for Barbarossa . Besides, it is irrelevant,as in the HTL, the Germans failed to defeat the SU in the summer, if the summer/spring started earlier, the Germans also would fail .The Germans planned to defeat the SU in a short campaign of not more than 10 weeks,why : because they had only 10 weeks to defeat the SU .Barbarossa could succeed only if during these 10 weeks the Red Army would be defeated AND if this defeat would result in the collaps of the SU . Reality is that the SU did not collaps ,but mobilised in less than a year some 15 million men .
Halder wrote is his diary in July : the war is won in a few weeks; a few weeks later ,he wrote : we habe underestimated the SU , the war is not won .And that was written BEFORE the first Allied LL deliveries arrived in the SU .

[jesk]

Barbarossa was not delayed to May 15: when the decision was taken to invade Yugoslavia, there was still no date for Barbarossa . Besides, it is irrelevant,as in the HTL, the Germans failed to defeat the SU in the summer, if the summer/spring started earlier, the Germans also would fail .The Germans planned to defeat the SU in a short campaign of not more than 10 weeks,why : because they had only 10 weeks to defeat the SU .Barbarossa could succeed only if during these 10 weeks the Red Army would be defeated AND if this defeat would result in the collaps of the SU . Reality is that the SU did not collaps ,but mobilised in less than a year some 15 million men .
Halder wrote is his diary in July : the war is won in a few weeks; a few weeks later ,he wrote : we habe underestimated the SU , the war is not won .And that was written BEFORE the first Allied LL deliveries arrived in the SU .

But this is again fixing the events that happened. Barbarossa is relatively well over. The Germans at the end of 1941 were 80 km from Moscow and the suburbs of Leningrad. In 1942, the Germans surrendered to Hitler, agreeing to a dubious plan for 1/3 Barbarossa. Attacks only in the south.

[Stugbit]

Barbarossa was not delayed to May 15: when the decision was taken to invade Yugoslavia, there was still no date for Barbarossa . Besides, it is irrelevant,as in the HTL, the Germans failed to defeat the SU in the summer, if the summer/spring started earlier, the Germans also would fail .The Germans planned to defeat the SU in a short campaign of not more than 10 weeks,why : because they had only 10 weeks to defeat the SU .Barbarossa could succeed only if during these 10 weeks the Red Army would be defeated AND if this defeat would result in the collaps of the SU . Reality is that the SU did not collaps ,but mobilised in less than a year some 15 million men .
Halder wrote is his diary in July : the war is won in a few weeks; a few weeks later ,he wrote : we habe underestimated the SU , the war is not won .And that was written BEFORE the first Allied LL deliveries arrived in the SU .

The war did not ended in the winter 41. There was the desert war going on, the Battle of the Atlantic, latter the air raids. The Soviet did not captured Berlin by it`s own wheigt alone. The Germans could have had the option to at least make a stalemate against the SU in 42.

And saying that only the War in Russia mattered is Stalinist thinking...

[ljadw]

On July 3 ,Halder wrote in his diary :
"' It is thus probably no overstatement to say that the Russian cvampaign has been won in the space of 2 weeks ." and " We can say that the task of destroying the main forces of the Russian land army in front of the Western Dvina and the Dnieper River is accomplished ."
On August 11 (5 weeks later ) when the Russian Army started a big offensive that costed the Germans 200000 men in August , the same Halder wrote in his diary :'we have underestimated the Soviets''-which was not true, and implying that this underestimation was the reason of the German failure,which was also not true .
The Allied LL deliveries between July 3 and August 11 were almost inexistent and had no influence on the outcome of the fighting during that period .The Soviets stopped the Germans WITHOUT any Allied help .

[Peter89]

Answering Jesk about the Hitler being a Soviet agent:

I have seen many weird things in history, so I would not discredit completely even that assumption. But I got to tell you, this is highly unlikely.
This account almost for Stalin giving a gun to a stranger put in the back of his head.
Hitler was an Austrian, he fought WWI, he had a background. How would you trust something like the German Military power to just a person, an agent? Even trusting Sorge it took the Soviets many time, as initially they considered him not trustable.

Even so, Hitler pointed the gun and reached almost Moscow. It was not an easy thing reaching that far in Russia. Still, there was a precedent invasion developed in the same way. The Napoleon`s one...

You can argue that Napoleon himself was an agent of the Russian Empire. But what would be the mathematic probability of having two narcissistic disordered, low stature megalomaniacs working as agents for Russia?

The wars in 1812 were primitive. In the battle of Borodino in the area a few hectares per day killed 100,000 Russians and French. In 1941, there are many more opportunities for a maneuver war. The Germans captured millions of Russians, bearing minimal losses.
Hitler did wrong. I have not been interested in talking seriously about stupid things since that time. Hitler's errors in practice are sabotage, rather primitive.

I did not write about the Soviet agent. Stalin needed him as a scarecrow, for protection from which Europeans led by the United States will unite. Hitler was an agent of the European Union. He dreamed of a democratic Europe with a single European currency.

Hitler kids

Calling chief representatives of liberal democracies as "Hitler's kids", including a black male and a woman with a PHD in physics... seriously, are you joking?

[ljadw]

Barbarossa was not delayed to May 15: when the decision was taken to invade Yugoslavia, there was still no date for Barbarossa . Besides, it is irrelevant,as in the HTL, the Germans failed to defeat the SU in the summer, if the summer/spring started earlier, the Germans also would fail .The Germans planned to defeat the SU in a short campaign of not more than 10 weeks,why : because they had only 10 weeks to defeat the SU .Barbarossa could succeed only if during these 10 weeks the Red Army would be defeated AND if this defeat would result in the collaps of the SU . Reality is that the SU did not collaps ,but mobilised in less than a year some 15 million men .
Halder wrote is his diary in July : the war is won in a few weeks; a few weeks later ,he wrote : we habe underestimated the SU , the war is not won .And that was written BEFORE the first Allied LL deliveries arrived in the SU .

The war did not ended in the winter 41. There was the desert war going on, the Battle of the Atlantic, latter the air raids. The Soviet did not captured Berlin by it`s own wheigt alone. The Germans could have had the option to at least make a stalemate against the SU in 42.

And saying that only the War in Russia mattered is Stalinist thinking...

The Desert war was a side show, a German victory in the Atlantic was impossible ,and a stalemate in the East was also impossible .
The truth is
a that the SU could defeat Germany on its own:even if Overlord failed, Bagration would succeed
b that the Allies ( Britain and France ) could defeat Germany on their own :even if Bagration failed, Overlord would succeed .
c that the SU and the Allies were winning independently from each other .
Germany's only chance was to divide the Western Allies= to force Britain to stop the war( without Britain ,US were not dangerous,was the German thinkling ) and this could only happen if the SU was defeated in a short campaign .
In WWI Germany was defeated by a coalition between France and Britain; it tried to split it , but failed .In WWII there was a de facto coalition between US and Britain, as Germany could do nothing against the US and its attempts against Britain had failed, there was only one solution remaining: Barbarossa, which could only succeed in a short campaign .

[Stugbit]

On July 3 ,Halder wrote in his diary :
"' It is thus probably no overstatement to say that the Russian cvampaign has been won in the space of 2 weeks ." and " We can say that the task of destroying the main forces of the Russian land army in front of the Western Dvina and the Dnieper River is accomplished ."
On August 11 (5 weeks later ) when the Russian Army started a big offensive that costed the Germans 200000 men in August , the same Halder wrote in his diary :'we have underestimated the Soviets''-which was not true, and implying that this underestimation was the reason of the German failure,which was also not true .
The Allied LL deliveries between July 3 and August 11 were almost inexistent and had no influence on the outcome of the fighting during that period .The Soviets stopped the Germans WITHOUT any Allied help .

The war did not ended in 41. If it has been that way, the Soviet would have captured Berlin in 42. It did not happened, the Germans managed to stabilise the front after the Soviet offensive. Despite all the losses they took from the Soviet superior numbers, the hash winter, etc. Berlin felt in 45...

Do you know how much time is three years?

SU could defeat Germany on its own

I don`t believe on this and I know a lot of people that would follow suit.

The only way the Western Allied could win alone against Germany was using atomic bombs. Even with the Soviet help they suffered to fight the Germans, just look at the Italian Campaign.

[Peter89]

Barbarossa was not delayed to May 15: when the decision was taken to invade Yugoslavia, there was still no date for Barbarossa . Besides, it is irrelevant,as in the HTL, the Germans failed to defeat the SU in the summer, if the summer/spring started earlier, the Germans also would fail .The Germans planned to defeat the SU in a short campaign of not more than 10 weeks,why : because they had only 10 weeks to defeat the SU .Barbarossa could succeed only if during these 10 weeks the Red Army would be defeated AND if this defeat would result in the collaps of the SU . Reality is that the SU did not collaps ,but mobilised in less than a year some 15 million men .
Halder wrote is his diary in July : the war is won in a few weeks; a few weeks later ,he wrote : we habe underestimated the SU , the war is not won .And that was written BEFORE the first Allied LL deliveries arrived in the SU .

Nope, Barbarossa was delayed TO June 22, instead of the original date of May 15. I read it in R.J. Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia (2004).

Why would the Germans only had 10 weeks? Apparently, they were able to conduct successful offensive operations for months longer than that timeframe.

I wasn't talking about LL in 1941, and I think you know it very well.

[Peter89]

c that the SU and the Allies were winning independently from each other .

I think you're totally wrong, but you might be joking as well.

Just for the record, the mobilization of the Red Army was heavily dependant on the LL, which contributed a great deal for the success of Bagration. And the Western allies never really faced the majority of the Wehrmacht.

If you'd say that the USA would be in any case the ultimate winner of the war because of the A-bomb, I might agree with you.

[Stugbit]

Most of the German forces were fighting the Soviet in the east when Operation Overlord happened. If the Allied already took a toll against a half cook German force there, how it could manage the whole thing? They tried to make a desembark in 42 and everything got wront. The battle of Salerno was almost a German victory.

The Soviet only manage to reach Berlin because they had a vastly numeric superior tank force. Those tank pincers were broking the German lines and making kessels in the front just like the Germans did back in 41. Without numeric superiority in armour, the Soviet wouldn`t be able to broke the spikes of the defenses.

And how they managed to build such large numbers of tanks? Beucase they did not needed to build trucks. The majority of the trucks of the Soviet Union after 41 came from the Allied as Lend Lease. Those truck were the logistic support of the tanks spearheads.


On the other hand, the Atlantic War was lost because Hitler never give a serious attention to the submarines, for him it was secundary. He could not see the potential of these weapons. If they given investment to submarine development and rush the development of the latter models, things could have been different.

And the Desert War was not a side show. The middle East position is very strategic, the Suez Channel as well. There were battles in the Napoleonic Wars, in WWI...

[jesk]

Barbarossa was not delayed to May 15: when the decision was taken to invade Yugoslavia, there was still no date for Barbarossa . Besides, it is irrelevant,as in the HTL, the Germans failed to defeat the SU in the summer, if the summer/spring started earlier, the Germans also would fail .The Germans planned to defeat the SU in a short campaign of not more than 10 weeks,why : because they had only 10 weeks to defeat the SU .Barbarossa could succeed only if during these 10 weeks the Red Army would be defeated AND if this defeat would result in the collaps of the SU . Reality is that the SU did not collaps ,but mobilised in less than a year some 15 million men .
Halder wrote is his diary in July : the war is won in a few weeks; a few weeks later ,he wrote : we habe underestimated the SU , the war is not won .And that was written BEFORE the first Allied LL deliveries arrived in the SU .

This phrase is taken out of context, in the same place about divisions, much weaker than ours. There is much in the diary about Halder's disagreement with Hitler's decisions.

The general situation all the more clearly and clearly shows that the colossus-Russia, which was deliberately preparing for the war, in spite of all the difficulties inherent in countries with a totalitarian regime, was underestimated by us. This statement can be extended to all economic and organizational aspects, to the means of communication and, in particular, to the purely military capabilities of the Russians {458}. By the beginning of the war, we had against ourselves about 200 enemy divisions. Now we have already 360 enemy divisions {459}. Of course, these divisions are not so armed and not as manned as ours, and their command in tactical respect is much weaker than ours, but, anyway, these divisions are.

[jesk]

Calling chief representatives of liberal democracies as "Hitler's kids", including a black male and a woman with a PHD in physics... seriously, are you joking?

Hitler lied, I claim. He used Nazis for his own purposes, but he himself did not adhere to such views.

[jesk]

The truth is
a that the SU could defeat Germany on its own:even if Overlord failed, Bagration would succeed
b that the Allies ( Britain and France ) could defeat Germany on their own :even if Bagration failed, Overlord would succeed .

c it is necessary to consider the problem in complex. Bagration could not have been so successful without leaving the troops in the Baltic and Norway. For this decision, Hitler had to fight with generals. The nearer the war approached the borders of Germany, the less they wanted to obey Hitler. 45 divisions and 800 thousand soldiers could give Norway and Courland for the defense of Germany. Inadvertently Courland in Russian sources is called the armed camp of prisoners.

[jesk]

The Soviet only manage to reach Berlin because they had a vastly numeric superior tank force. Those tank pincers were broking the German lines and making kessels in the front just like the Germans did back in 41. Without numeric superiority in armour, the Soviet wouldn`t be able to broke the spikes of the defenses.

Not only tanks. In January 1945, there were 14 infantry divisions in the German 9 field and 4 tank armies, among the Russians 135. By order of Hitler, the troops were too close to the front line, as a result, Russian artillery preparation was particularly successful.