Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Post Reply
SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#46

Post by SloveneLiberal » 23 Jan 2019, 16:51

I want to warn that Caucasus oil fields were producing 80% of Soviet oil. That is a very important factor. Also German army in 1942 was accompanied by workers and engineers with the task of reparing the heavily damaged oil fields in Caucasus.

User avatar
dgfred
Member
Posts: 386
Joined: 31 Jan 2008, 17:56
Location: N.C., USA

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#47

Post by dgfred » 23 Jan 2019, 17:04

Hey ljadw.
I think 1, and it would not take that long to a least get some production/transport.

I also think that a solid 6th Army (and others) could fend off any attacks aimed at Rostov.

Thanks for your input.


SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#48

Post by SloveneLiberal » 23 Jan 2019, 17:08

Max Payload wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 15:59
SloveneLiberal wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 13:31
the German generals were seeing Caucasus oil fields in 1941 as to far to reach, yet they were ordered by Hitler to reach them but they rather concentrated on Moscow to his great anger.
It may well have been the case that a strategic effort in the south during the autumn of 1941 (with appropriate planning in Aug/Sept) would have provided a better outcome for the Wehrmacht than the humiliation it suffered in front of Moscow, but we will never know. Yet it is wrong to suggest that German generals acted in contravention of Hitler's orders with regard to Moscow. In August Hitler had been inclined towards a strategic effort in the south but by early September he had been persuaded otherwise and it was his decision to go for Moscow.
At the meeting of Soviet supreme council marshal Timosenko said in November 1941 that fall of Moscow will be a big disappointment but it will by no means have an effect on their big strategy. The only thing which matters is oil. This is speaking for itself.

What i want for the people to grasp is also that Hitler had a right strategy in 1941 because he wanted German army to take over Caucasus. From the point of Nazi Germany of course. Yet his generals, Halder, Brauchitsch, Guderian etc. were ignoring his order at that time. Hitler was complaining several times that his generals are ignoring the economic aspects of war. With this i do not say that Hitler was later against the offensive against Moscow. But stategical mistake was made by the generals in the beggining later it was just confirmed on the ground how wrong they were.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#49

Post by Art » 23 Jan 2019, 17:21

Where can I see the proceedings of this meeting?

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#50

Post by Hanny » 23 Jan 2019, 18:02

Art wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 17:21
Where can I see the proceedings of this meeting?
He is using info from here.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg

Here is better, as to what the German thought about their oil problems. .https://repository.library.georgetown.e ... _11993.pdf
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#51

Post by SloveneLiberal » 23 Jan 2019, 18:13

Hanny you are quite right also from that link yes. :) The statement of marshal Timosenko is recorded at 17:30.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#52

Post by Art » 23 Jan 2019, 18:13

Ok, but what is the source for that?

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 21 Jun 2008, 15:37

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#53

Post by Max Payload » 23 Jan 2019, 18:15

SloveneLiberal wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 16:51
I want to warn that Caucasus oil fields were producing 80% of Soviet oil.
Only if you include Baku, which I would argue was always going to be beyond the reach of Army Group South. Maikop and Grozny together only accounted for 10%.
SloveneLiberal wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 16:51
German army in 1942 was accompanied by workers and engineers with the task of reparing the heavily damaged oil fields in Caucasus.
dgfred wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 17:04
I think 1, and it would not take that long to a least get some production/transport.
In a report to Georg Thomas, head of the War Economy and Armaments Office, made one month after Maikop was taken, it was claimed that it would take at least another six months (i.e. until the spring of 1943) until regular production could resume.
Then there was the question of its strategic value. Lt-General Hermann von Hanneken, one of Thomas’s planners, reported in March 1941 that even if the Caucasus oilfields could be captured intact, very little oil could be shipped overland to Germany and that even if the Black Sea could be made safe for trans-shipping (which would never have been the case until Batumi was taken), there would be no tonnage available for the transport of additional oil up the Danube because the Danube river tankers were already working to capacity transporting Romanian oil.

SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#54

Post by SloveneLiberal » 23 Jan 2019, 18:27

But Max Payload Baku itself was specially underlined and targeted by Hitler in his planning of Barbarossa. :)

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#55

Post by Hanny » 23 Jan 2019, 18:29

Art wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 18:13
Ok, but what is the source for that?

https://www.joelhayward.org/Hitlers-Quest-Finished.pdf

'If Germany succeeds in taking Moscow', explained Marshal Timoshenko in a secret speech to the Supreme Defence Council in Moscow,
that is obviously a grave disappointment for us, but it by no means disrupts our grand strategy Germany would gain accommodation [that is, shelter from the cruel Russian winter], but that alone will not win the war. The only thing that matters is oil. As we remember, Germany kept harping on her own urgent oil problems in her economic bargaining with us from 1939 to 1941. So we have to do all
HITLER'S QUEST FOR OIL 109
we can (a) to make Germany increase her oil consumption, and (b) to keep the German armies out of the Caucasus.76

76 refers to D Irving Hitlers war

Which is here:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/1977/ ... er/20.html
p. 348 Timoshenko’s secret speech was reported by the German military attachÈ in Berne (First Panzer Army, war diary, annex, N63/53). Timoshenko commanded the Soviet Southwest Front (i.e., army group) from mid-September 1941, and was a member of the Soviet supreme command, the Stavka. G–ring mentioned this speech to Mussolini on January 28, and Hitler to Antonescu on February 11, 1942.

So thats the primary sources, but only from the German accounts.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#56

Post by SloveneLiberal » 23 Jan 2019, 19:05

Also Albert Speer confirmed during the interogations after the war that prime goal of Barbarosa was to get oil for Germany.

In his supplement to War Directive 34, dated 21 August 1941, Hitler had stated:

The most important aim to be achieved before the onset of winter is
not the caputre of Moscow but, rather, the occupation of the
Crimea, of the industrial and coalmining area of the Donets basin,
the cutting of the Russian supply routes from the Caucasus oilfields,
and, in the north, the investment of Leningrad and the establishment of contact with the Finns.

Even in November 1941 Hitler was still giving orders to OKW that they should seize Maikop and Stalingrad during winter.

SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#57

Post by SloveneLiberal » 23 Jan 2019, 19:09

One very important thing here is also industrial Donets basin. Kharkov felt in October 1941 yet Soviets were somehow with great efforts able to remove industry across Ural. If German efforts would be more concenrated in the south as Hitler wanted also this success of Soviets would be very questinobale.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#58

Post by Art » 23 Jan 2019, 20:10

Hanny wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 18:29
p. 348 Timoshenko’s secret speech was reported by the German military attachÈ in Berne (First Panzer Army, war diary, annex, N63/53). Timoshenko commanded the Soviet Southwest Front (i.e., army group) from mid-September 1941, and was a member of the Soviet supreme command, the Stavka. G–ring mentioned this speech to Mussolini on January 28, and Hitler to Antonescu on February 11, 1942.
http://quotespictures.com/quotes/intern ... es/page/5/
Frankly, I doubt that the "meeting" and the "speech" were real.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 21 Jun 2008, 15:37

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#59

Post by Max Payload » 24 Jan 2019, 01:38

SloveneLiberal wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 18:27
But Max Payload Baku itself was specially underlined and targeted by Hitler in his planning of Barbarossa. :)
The only specific objectives of the Barbarossa planning were Leningrad, Smolensk and Kiev. The phasing with regard to subsequent objectives such as Moscow would depend on progress in the initial phase. More distant objectives such as Arkhangel, Astrakhan and Baku were based on an assumption that the complete destruction and collapse of the Red Army could be achieved in the initial phase of operations. It was never anticipated that the Wehrmacht would be able to fight its way to these more distant objectives in 1941.

SloveneLiberal wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 19:05
In his supplement to War Directive 34, dated 21 August 1941, Hitler had stated:

The most important aim to be achieved before the onset of winter is
not the caputre of Moscow but, rather, the occupation of the
Crimea, of the industrial and coalmining area of the Donets basin,
the cutting of the Russian supply routes from the Caucasus oilfields,
and, in the north, the investment of Leningrad and the establishment of contact with the Finns.
But not, at that time at least, the seizure of the oilfields. In any case, two weeks later he had changed his mind about Moscow. (Or to be strictly accurate about a major offensive in the direction of Moscow).

SloveneLiberal wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 19:05
Even in November 1941 Hitler was still giving orders to OKW that they should seize Maikop and Stalingrad during winter.
Totally unrealistic orders given that Kleist was not even able to hold on to Rostov in November and that throughout that month Rundstedt had been pleading with OKH for permission for AGS to be able to pull back to the Mius.

SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Was Germany’s situation THAT bad in the summer of 1942?

#60

Post by SloveneLiberal » 24 Jan 2019, 12:03

Well you can see from Hitler's orders that he wanted the seizure of Caucasus in 1941, that for him the priority was not Moscow but rather south with Donets Basin, Ukraine and Caucasus that he was thinking generals responsible for Barbarosa are not paying enough attetion to economic aspects of war. So let us leave to the judgement of individuals what went wrong. :)

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”