What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6347
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#301

Post by Richard Anderson » 16 Jul 2019, 16:47

Avalancheon wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 14:44
TheMarcksPlan already did substantiate his scenario, you simply didn't comprehend it very well. You ought to reread the original post, specifically, this part:

''Using the extra forces...''
That is not a substantiation of anything unless there is first a substantiation of how the Germans can get to those "extra forces" - an "additional 20" (or "8") "motorized divisions". The initial response to that question after his first post was "I'll get back to you later on that", but further answers were all variations on "the Germans think about it and shift resources around". That is not a substantial response and has further problems buried within it, as has been pointed out, but none of which have been resolved.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#302

Post by MarkN » 16 Jul 2019, 17:06

Richard Anderson wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 16:47
Avalancheon wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 14:44
TheMarcksPlan already did substantiate his scenario, you simply didn't comprehend it very well. You ought to reread the original post, specifically, this part:

''Using the extra forces...''
That is not a substantiation of anything unless there is first a substantiation of how the Germans can get to those "extra forces" - an "additional 20" (or "8") "motorized divisions". The initial response to that question after his first post was "I'll get back to you later on that", but further answers were all variations on "the Germans think about it and shift resources around". That is not a substantial response and has further problems buried within it, as has been pointed out, but none of which have been resolved.
Indeed.

No substantiation that the extra forces could be resourced.

No substantiation that the extra forces would succeed.


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#303

Post by ljadw » 16 Jul 2019, 17:30

Avalancheon wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 14:44

The Germans did fall short of achieving the objectives stated in Directive 21. They dramatically underestimated the manpower reserves of the Red Army, and the political stability of the USSR. No one though they could endure a surprise attack by the Heer, which was the best army in the world. Initially, not even Britain and America had confidence in the Soviets ability to survive.








ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
I have several objections to this post
1 A faster German progress would not depend on more mobile German divisions, but on the possibility that the Soviet Union already had collapsed .First the collaps of the SU and than the advance to the Volga, not the opposite .
2 The Ostheer did not fail in the Summer of 1941, the SU succeeded . Besides what the Ostheer did was irrelevant, everything depended on the Soviets .
Why should anyone believe this? Because you say so?
ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
3 Typhoon in August was out of the question . If it was possible, it would have been done . And it would fail . Even if it would succeed, the result would be meaningless .
In the original timeline, yes. But in this alternate timeline, that may not be the case.
ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
4 More mobile German forces will not automatically result in more Soviet losses,because the Soviets could always retreat faster than the Germans could advance .
This is complete nonsense. The Red Army cannot simply conduct endless retreat after endless retreat. You know why? Because it would mean losing all their population centers, agricultural areas, resources and infrastructure that much quicker. If the Soviets didn't put up any fight at all in 1941 and just ran away, there is nothing stopping the Germans from marching all the way to Moscow, and on to Maxim Gorky. The Red Army would then have no meaningful ability to wage war against the Heer.
ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
5 There is no proof that the fall of Leningrad would result in a mass prisoner haul : there were no 500000 Soviet soldiers in Leningrad .
Leningrad had about 25 divisions within the city during September 1941, plus a large number of sailors at the port and Kronstadt. 300-400,000 men is probably a more realistic estimate.
ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
6 The same for Moscow : a battle for Moscow depended on the Soviets only = on their willingness to fight for Moscow west of the city, or to fight in the city .
More nonsense. You subscribe to the totally ridiculous idea that the Red Army could simply copy what the Imperial Russian Army did in 1812, and engage in a headlong retreat from the invaders without suffering any consequences. This is wrong on every conceivable level.
ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
It is all wishful thinking : the collaps of the SU was only possible by a combination of political and military events
military : if it was possible to defeat the standing Soviet forces between the border and the DD line . This depended on the soviet willingness to send their armies to that region .
political : if this defeat resulted in the collaps of the SU and in the impossibility to raise new armies .And we know that this did not happen : between June 22 and June 30 the regime succeeded into mobilizing 5 million + men . Which proves that the collaps would not happen . A few days later, Hitler was already panicking and hoped on a Japanese intervention .This while he had forbidden to inform Tokyo about Barbarossa .



[/quote]

1 The Germans did not underestimate the Soviet manpower reserves : they knew that if the Soviets had big manpower reserves that if the regime could mobilize them, it was over . Thus naturally they started from the scenario that the regime could not mobilize them . That is not an underestimation . Besides, if they knew about these reserves, nothing would change : these reserves would not disappear if FHO knew about them .
2 Weisung 21 said explicitly that the Soviet forces in the western part of the SU had to be defeated and that the retreat of fighting able parts of these forces had to be prevented, After the defeat of these forces,west of the DD line, all that would be requires was a pursuit of a defeated enemy,pursuit til the Volga . The Kriegsspiele of the winter of 41/42 had as conclusion that if big fighting continued east of the DD line, the war could not be won .
3 The defeat of the Soviet forces west of the DD line was depending
a on the willingness of the Soviets to send their forces to the region west of the DD line, and Halder was jubilating when they did it .Thus everything depended on the Soviets : if they did not accept the battle, it was over .Germany could not defeat the Soviets before Moscow or east of Moscow .
4 When ,already in July ! , there were no signs of a Soviet disintegration, Hitler panicked, because he knew,that if the SU did not desintegrate in July , the war would continue, east of the DD line and that he could not be won .A sudden collaps of the SU was the only way to win . Thus again : everything depended on the Soviets . And, if the SU did not collaps in July, it would not collaps later .And what happened ? In July the Germans lost 170000 men, in August 200000 men .The Germans expected the collaps of the Red Army at last in August, with mass desertions . They lost 200000 men .The big fighting started in August . And the Germans had no other solution than to continue , hoping : the SU will give up tomorrow, or the day after , or the day after the day after, or,or ...
5 Hoping that 20 more weak mobile divisions would do the job is falling in the post war propaganda of Guderian and the tank lobby : these 20 additional divisions could do nothing without the support and protection of at least 40 additional ID ,and it was out of the question that these could be raised for Barbarossa .
Hitler could win with slightly weaker Barbarossa forces . Slightly stronger forces would not help him .
The allies needed 3 months to go to the German border, how much time would the Germans need to go to the Urals (3000 km ) ?
And they could only go to the Urals with small forces, and small forces presume a prior German defeat .

antwony
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Jun 2016, 10:14
Location: Not at that place

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#304

Post by antwony » 16 Jul 2019, 17:53

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 00:08
Once Leningrad falls, Finland is free - and confident enough - to pursue its "Greater Finland" strategy. Superficial histories
By "superficial" I presume you meant histories written by competent historians i.e not Kotkin.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 00:08
will say that the Finns wouldn't advance past where they got to, but in fact they planned to annex the entire Kola peninsula
Whre did you read that ? Kotkin?
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 00:08
and Karelia all the way to at least Lake Onega.
They did go all the way to Ääninen
Michael Kenny wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 01:19
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 00:08
Once Leningrad falls, Finland is free - and confident enough - to pursue its "Greater Finland" strategy. Superficial histories will say that the Finns wouldn't advance past where they got to,..................
Nothing superficial about the Finns reluctance. They were told in no uncertain terms than any such advance would mean an immediate declaration of War by The USA. That is what was holding them back.
Maybe, they'd also already advanced to a defensible line which, with the exception of the around around St. Petersburg, included pretty much all ethnic Finns.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 02:07
if they step beyond the Svir River.
They did go beyond Syväri.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 02:07
No one - Mannerheim included - would believe that the US would declare war on Finland in 1941
I know you enjoy playing Hitler 2.0, but try to stop using people names and countries/ organistaions/ whatever, interchangably. What ever Mannerheim's opinion was of Finnish foreign policy was is pretty irrelevant, being that he wasn't in Parliament, let alone a dictator.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 03:16
Right. The Finns weren't going to step into creating Greater Finnland until/unless they were assured of victory.
They had created Suur- Suomi
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 03:16
Mannerheim and the Finnish right were playing the pragmatic game of waiting to see what it could get/keep.
Stick to playing Hitler, democracy's a bit beyond you.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 03:16
Recall that the UK was actively bombing Finland but it refused to withdraw from the war.
:lol: :lol: :lol: You'd look less of a **** if you just ignored the UK, your Anglophobia's moronic and, if possible, weakens your argument.

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

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#305

Post by Hanny » 16 Jul 2019, 18:29

Avalancheon wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 14:44

The timeline created by TheMarksPlan proposes certain changes to the structure of the Ost Heer, in order to give them a better chance of achieving the goals outlined in Directive 21. Namely, the destruction of the Red Army and the conquest of the Soviet Union. Thats what the discussion is about.
So much so that its no longer the Heer, ( its the Reich can do a 60 mech Div gamble in 38 when its the least motorised nation in europe) whose logistics in the east in 41,failed because industry could not produce enough trucks ( or fuel to run them on, in took 6 months to produce and stockpile 6 months munition at France campaign level, 3 months POL and 1 month lubricants )to motorise the logistical lift from a rail head to the front line, ( the only nation with that capability in the period is the USA) the 300 mile operational bound of the Pzr`s Groups was done by doubling their fuel and halving their munition basic loads. All of which was drawn from which ever AG they found themselves under. Another Pzr Group in the East now requires a further 1500 tons a day to operate, given the Entire fore requires 32000 this extra 5% consumption per day, means the Heer will not win at historic levels because it consumes even faster than historically the logistics that did get through, which by 3 weeks in was under half of requirements.

The Germans assumed no soviet deep reserves at the start of planning it was Paulus who looked and came up with they will put another 100 Divs up in the time were going to take to win, we should sent more. It matters not how many tactical uber victories you allow the Pzr`s Groups, each one is fought to far from a rail head, its rail that can support armies of that size in the field, not trucks, before the rail is converted( if their even is a rail line where you want it) the SU has put up more armies in the way, 3 times more than the germans planned to meet. Given the rate of mobilisation of the SU and the loss of logistics reaching those in need of it, there is no chance of a defeat in the time frame of a short war, ie before the rains. The principle reason for truck and AFV, engines loss was the dry weather, the dust got past the filters, and a months oil stockpile was gone in no time, so was half the trucks.
Last edited by Hanny on 16 Jul 2019, 18:47, edited 3 times in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

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

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#306

Post by Hanny » 16 Jul 2019, 18:39

ljadw wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 17:30
You might want to tidy that up.My God, ljadw, you have quarreled with every poster in the forum, and now you are quarreling with yourself.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biog ... xton-bragg
Once Bragg had been both a company commander as well as company quartermaster (the officer in charge of approving the disbursement of provisions). As company commander he made a request upon the company quartermaster--himself--for something he wanted. As quartermaster he denied the request and gave an official reason for doing so in writing. As company commander he argued back that he was justly entitled to what he requested. As quartermaster he stubbornly continued to persist in denying himself what he needed. Bragg requested the intervention of the post commander (perhaps to diffuse the impasse before it came to blows). His commander was incredulous and he declared, "My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself."
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#307

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 16 Jul 2019, 23:47

Hanny wrote:its the Reich can do a 60 mech Div gamble in 38 when its the least motorised nation in europe
This is representative of Hanny's posting in this thread (including awful grammar): Twist your opponent's argument into its worst possible version to attack it.
An extra 20 divisions means 54 in 1941, not 60 in 1938.
The 34 actually achieved by 1941 exceeded planning in 1938.
So Germany doesn't need to plan for 54divs in 38: Planning for more mobility in 38 would have begun building the platform to exceed the ATL 38 expectations just as OTL Germany exceeded its OTL 38 mobility plans.
Hanny wrote:logistics in the east in 41,failed because industry could not produce enough trucks ( or fuel to run them on, in took 6 months to produce and stockpile 6 months munition at France campaign level, 3 months POL and 1 month lubricants )to motorise the logistical lift from a rail head to the front line, ( the only nation with that capability in the period is the USA) the 300 mile operational bound of the Pzr`s Groups was done by doubling their fuel and halving their munition basic loads. All of which was drawn from which ever AG they found themselves under. Another Pzr Group in the East now requires a further 1500 tons a day to operate, given the Entire fore requires 32000 this extra 5% consumption per day, means the Heer will not win at historic levels because it consumes even faster than historically the logistics that did get through, which by 3 weeks in was under half of requirements.
A bunch of half-formed ideas in these run-on sentences. I'll construe two clear thoughts: (1) Germany could not have produced enough trucks for the extra divisions and (2) Germany had not enough fuel and wheeled lift to supply a larger Ostheer.

Re (1): Opel's 3-ton truck cost 7,000RM to produce; say 10,000RM for the larger trucks. To produce the 34,000 extra trucks needed by 20 mobile divisions would cost 340mil RM or ~0.4% of Germany's 1941 GDP. Spread over 3-4 years of production that's ~0.1% of Germany's GDP. For someone to argue that a thing "could not have been done" one has to address that Germany plainly could have afforded to build more trucks had it shifted its priorities, such as cutting domestic consumption by 0.1% from 1939 (OTL Germany saw domestic consumption drop by 8% of GDP from 1939 to 1941, with further cuts thereafter. This is eminently doable). Hanny's argument is basically "it wasn't done, therefore it couldn't have been done." He has nowhere addressed or acknowledged the very tiny portion of German resources required to mobilize 20 more divisions.

Re (2): As he is committed to twisting arguments to show how the ATL COULD NEVER work, he won't give any thought to expediencies to address the Ostheer's fuel burn and logistical burden under a different force structure. But there are definitely such possibilities. For example:

-The OTL Barbarossa plan envisioned an uninterrupted advance through Belarus and the Baltics, stopping for the operational pause around Smolensk. This meant, however, that the Panzer spearheads and even the infantry had far outrun the railheads. An Ostheer conscious of, and competent towards, its long-term fuel supplies and logistical situation could have - should have - broken the planned two-week pause around Smolensk into two pauses - say at Minsk and then at Smolensk. A pause at Minsk and Daugavpils/Riga would, of course, have driven Guderian et. al. crazy. But Guderian needed to be muzzled and Hitler and Halder (who is competent in my ATL instead of duplicitous and incompetent) should have imposed on him obedience to the strategic picture. There is no way that pausing on a Riga-Dvina-Minsk line in early July would have enabled the Soviets to stop the Germans there and - equally important - no way the Germans would have believed the SU could do so. Furthermore, the Baltics and Belarus had extremely little strategic value: no industry, in the Baltics a population unlikely to support the war anyway, and throughout very poor agriculture. Germany loses exceedingly little by delaying capture of the Baltics and Belarus by a week or two.

When the Heer was far ahead of the railheads, the majority of its fuel consumption was in the Grossraum, whose MTV park exceeded the tactical units. By keeping close to the railheads the Heer could have significantly cut its fuel consumption and its wear on the vehicle fleet (a factor amply demonstrated in earlier campaigns).

A 50+% cut to fuel consumption by the Grossraum of AG's North and Center would have easily allowed Germany to fuel the additional panzers and trucks of 20 divisions. And of course that argument is easier if Germany needs only 14, 10, 8, or 6 additional divisions to win. Of course the "NO WAY" crew will not even consider the lower force deltas because they only want to put opposing arguments in the most difficult light possible.

Besides a different operational pace tied to the railroads, I've also suggested that Germany could have and should have foregone the Battle of Britain given a grand strategy that involved a stronger Barbarossa pushing closer to the limits of Germany's fuel supply. Of course it's true that OTL Hitler was still waffling about Barbarossa at inception of OTL BoB, but this ATL supposes a strategically sound Hitler instead of the often muddled (and yes lazy, deluded, petty etc.) historical Fuehrer. If anything in history is contingent, it's the personality of national leaders; we got lucky that Hitler had so many flaws.

What I see from some posters here - Hanny, MarkN, RichardAnderson - is an almost panicked urgency to shut down any suggestion that an ATL might work. It's not that they don't raise some good points here and there (Hanny and Rich, anyway), it's that they refuse even to acknowledge counterarguments from the fundamentals of the German economy. It's as if some deep-seated insecurity or complex compels aggression towards anyone who thinks they raise an interesting idea.
Hanny wrote:The Germans assumed no soviet deep reserves at the start of planning
We can at least agree that this was world-historically stupid, right?
Can you further agree that the OKH behaved incompetently by not recognizing the merits of Paulus' projections and raising them to Hitler?
Hanny wrote:Given the rate of mobilisation of the SU and the loss of logistics reaching those in need of it, there is no chance of a defeat in the time frame of a short war, ie before the rains.
Nobody here is arguing for the "short war" scenario.
The argument is precisely that Germany couldn't win a short war; they had to plan for a longer, more difficult campaign.
Hanny wrote:It matters not how many tactical uber victories you allow the Pzr`s Groups, each one is fought to far from a rail head, its rail that can support armies of that size in the field, not trucks, before the rail is converted( if their even is a rail line where you want it) the SU has put up more armies in the way, 3 times more than the germans planned to meet.
Re "It matters not how many tactical uber victories you allow the Pzr`s Groups," I assume you mean "It matters not how many tactical uber victories you allow the Pzr`s Groups DURING THE BORDER BATTLES." [see how I am trying to construe your argument in the best light possible? Maybe try that some time, it's more conducive to good discussion]

You appear to support that assertion (border battles can't change outcome) by alluding to supply difficulties and the strength of SU forces behind the borders and being generated ("before the rail is converted( if their [sic] even is a rail line where you want it) the SU has put up more armies in the way, 3 times more than the germans planned to meet.").

The assumptions of your argument are (1) that SU forces would be strong enough to defeat the Heer even having lost 4-5 armies during the border battles and (2) logistical difficulties would prevent the Germans from beating the SU forces.

(1) is an assumption/assertion, not an argument. You continue to refuse to describe how SU would beat the Heer while missing 4-5 armies from its OTL order of battle.

(2) is also an assertion, though elsewhere you've attempted to back it up by describing logistical difficulties. The problem with this thought is obvious: The Germans faced severe logistical difficulties throughout Barbarossa yet defeated every Soviet army they faced until November.

The argument you'd want to make in response is that Germany couldn't have supported the stronger forces logistically and/or that the presence of the additional forces would exacerbate logistical strain to such an extent as to prevent German victories. That's a better argument, Hanny, I wish I had written it myself. ;)

Of course I've anticipated that argument throughout my ATL. I describe up-post a specific means of addressing fuel consumption and logistical strain: tether at least the northern army groups to the railroads more tightly. That has some strategic cost (slower land capture) but only a very small one.

In addition, Germany could have and should have made better plans for, and put more effort into, its logistical planning for Barbarossa, such as:

1. building slower and therefore cheaper "Ost-engines" for the slow conditions on Russian rails. Germany did this later in the war; would have and should done so from 1940 given a competent view of the strategic situation (i.e. a long war instead of a quick roadtrip to Astrakhan). Building more cheaper engines instead of fewer Euro-style engines effectively gives Germany more train lift because the fast Euro engines used in the East functioned no better (actually worse) than slow Ost-engines would have.
2. Mobilizing earlier the 8% GDP of consumption slack removed from the economy by 1941 and the greater amount removed later
3. Rationalizing Germany's inefficient war-production-management system by, e.g., appointing Sauckel and a Speer-like figure earlier in the war.

You will of course call #'s 2/3 "hand waving." But that's because you don't have an argument for why these steps couldn't have been taken. You hand-wave at any responsibility to make an argument.

BTW - I believe that the clarity of one's thoughts and the clarity of his/her writing are correlated. Your writing is usually structurally and grammatically messy; I have no doubt it reflects how clearly you're thinking through the issues in this thread. Instead of posting pages and pages and details, try to take a step back and consider the point to which you're responding and the structure/content of your response. That will clarify things in your own head and make your arguments more illuminating and relevant to the topic. Anybody with a >90 IQ can stuff their head with WW2 facts; it takes a bit more to make a useful argument.
Last edited by TheMarcksPlan on 16 Jul 2019, 23:59, edited 3 times in total.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#308

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 16 Jul 2019, 23:54

antwony wrote:your Anglophobia's moronic
If your feelings are hurt, maybe this will make you feel better: The US acted far worse in this period than the UK by sitting and doing nothing except literally returning Jewish refugees to be murdered by Hitler. Am I anti-American now too?

I've provided ample citation to Finnish territorial ambitions though the Wikipedia article and its references alone. If you want to believe the simple story about Finland I won't try any further to dissuade you.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#309

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 17 Jul 2019, 00:04

Is anyone confused by the names on the quotes and comments in this post?
ljadw wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 17:30
Avalancheon wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 14:44

The Germans did fall short of achieving the objectives stated in Directive 21. They dramatically underestimated the manpower reserves of the Red Army, and the political stability of the USSR. No one though they could endure a surprise attack by the Heer, which was the best army in the world. Initially, not even Britain and America had confidence in the Soviets ability to survive.








ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
I have several objections to this post
1 A faster German progress would not depend on more mobile German divisions, but on the possibility that the Soviet Union already had collapsed .First the collaps of the SU and than the advance to the Volga, not the opposite .
2 The Ostheer did not fail in the Summer of 1941, the SU succeeded . Besides what the Ostheer did was irrelevant, everything depended on the Soviets .
Why should anyone believe this? Because you say so?
ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
3 Typhoon in August was out of the question . If it was possible, it would have been done . And it would fail . Even if it would succeed, the result would be meaningless .
In the original timeline, yes. But in this alternate timeline, that may not be the case.
ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
4 More mobile German forces will not automatically result in more Soviet losses,because the Soviets could always retreat faster than the Germans could advance .
This is complete nonsense. The Red Army cannot simply conduct endless retreat after endless retreat. You know why? Because it would mean losing all their population centers, agricultural areas, resources and infrastructure that much quicker. If the Soviets didn't put up any fight at all in 1941 and just ran away, there is nothing stopping the Germans from marching all the way to Moscow, and on to Maxim Gorky. The Red Army would then have no meaningful ability to wage war against the Heer.
ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
5 There is no proof that the fall of Leningrad would result in a mass prisoner haul : there were no 500000 Soviet soldiers in Leningrad .
Leningrad had about 25 divisions within the city during September 1941, plus a large number of sailors at the port and Kronstadt. 300-400,000 men is probably a more realistic estimate.
ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
6 The same for Moscow : a battle for Moscow depended on the Soviets only = on their willingness to fight for Moscow west of the city, or to fight in the city .
More nonsense. You subscribe to the totally ridiculous idea that the Red Army could simply copy what the Imperial Russian Army did in 1812, and engage in a headlong retreat from the invaders without suffering any consequences. This is wrong on every conceivable level.
ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 16:27
It is all wishful thinking : the collaps of the SU was only possible by a combination of political and military events
military : if it was possible to defeat the standing Soviet forces between the border and the DD line . This depended on the soviet willingness to send their armies to that region .
political : if this defeat resulted in the collaps of the SU and in the impossibility to raise new armies .And we know that this did not happen : between June 22 and June 30 the regime succeeded into mobilizing 5 million + men . Which proves that the collaps would not happen . A few days later, Hitler was already panicking and hoped on a Japanese intervention .This while he had forbidden to inform Tokyo about Barbarossa .


1 The Germans did not underestimate the Soviet manpower reserves : they knew that if the Soviets had big manpower reserves that if the regime could mobilize them, it was over . Thus naturally they started from the scenario that the regime could not mobilize them . That is not an underestimation . Besides, if they knew about these reserves, nothing would change : these reserves would not disappear if FHO knew about them .
2 Weisung 21 said explicitly that the Soviet forces in the western part of the SU had to be defeated and that the retreat of fighting able parts of these forces had to be prevented, After the defeat of these forces,west of the DD line, all that would be requires was a pursuit of a defeated enemy,pursuit til the Volga . The Kriegsspiele of the winter of 41/42 had as conclusion that if big fighting continued east of the DD line, the war could not be won .
3 The defeat of the Soviet forces west of the DD line was depending
a on the willingness of the Soviets to send their forces to the region west of the DD line, and Halder was jubilating when they did it .Thus everything depended on the Soviets : if they did not accept the battle, it was over .Germany could not defeat the Soviets before Moscow or east of Moscow .
4 When ,already in July ! , there were no signs of a Soviet disintegration, Hitler panicked, because he knew,that if the SU did not desintegrate in July , the war would continue, east of the DD line and that he could not be won .A sudden collaps of the SU was the only way to win . Thus again : everything depended on the Soviets . And, if the SU did not collaps in July, it would not collaps later .And what happened ? In July the Germans lost 170000 men, in August 200000 men .The Germans expected the collaps of the Red Army at last in August, with mass desertions . They lost 200000 men .The big fighting started in August . And the Germans had no other solution than to continue , hoping : the SU will give up tomorrow, or the day after , or the day after the day after, or,or ...
5 Hoping that 20 more weak mobile divisions would do the job is falling in the post war propaganda of Guderian and the tank lobby : these 20 additional divisions could do nothing without the support and protection of at least 40 additional ID ,and it was out of the question that these could be raised for Barbarossa .
Hitler could win with slightly weaker Barbarossa forces . Slightly stronger forces would not help him .
The allies needed 3 months to go to the German border, how much time would the Germans need to go to the Urals (3000 km ) ?
And they could only go to the Urals with small forces, and small forces presume a prior German defeat .
[/quote]

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#310

Post by MarkN » 17 Jul 2019, 00:36

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 23:47
What I see from some posters here - Hanny, MarkN, RichardAnderson - is an almost panicked urgency to shut down any suggestion that an ATL might work. It's not that they don't raise some good points here and there (Hanny and Rich, anyway), it's that they refuse even to acknowledge counterarguments from the fundamentals of the German economy. It's as if some deep-seated insecurity or complex compels aggression towards anyone who thinks they raise an interesting idea.
Nope. Keep posting. AHF is a fun site. Full of giggles. Who's interested in discussing history anyway?

History shows us that the Heer came up short. Very, very short of its own objective. And even that objective didn't end the war since BARBAROSSA was designed as a quick campaign to enact a limited land grab with no thought as to how to conclude the war it had started.

What you have offered is your fantasy magic bullet to change that historical outcome without making any effort to substantiate your assumptions and premises. Lots and lots of hot air and words, but no substance.

Interesting idea? Maybe. But an idea born of fantasy not reality. Add some substance and perhaps others can discuss whether it has any historical relevance.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#311

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 17 Jul 2019, 00:57

TheMarcksPlan wrote:The OTL Barbarossa plan envisioned an uninterrupted advance through Belarus and the Baltics, stopping for the operational pause around Smolensk. This meant, however, that the Panzer spearheads and even the infantry had far outrun the railheads. An Ostheer conscious of, and competent towards, its long-term fuel supplies and logistical situation could have - should have - broken the planned two-week pause around Smolensk into two pauses - say at Minsk and then at Smolensk. A pause at Minsk and Daugavpils/Riga would, of course, have driven Guderian et. al. crazy. But Guderian needed to be muzzled and Hitler and Halder (who is competent in my ATL instead of duplicitous and incompetent) should have imposed on him obedience to the strategic picture. There is no way that pausing on a Riga-Dvina-Minsk line in early July would have enabled the Soviets to stop the Germans there and - equally important - no way the Germans would have believed the SU could do so. Furthermore, the Baltics and Belarus had extremely little strategic value: no industry, in the Baltics a population unlikely to support the war anyway, and throughout very poor agriculture. Germany loses exceedingly little by delaying capture of the Baltics and Belarus by a week or two.
A further thought on this:
Barbarossa saw a constant struggle between Hitler and the generals wherein the latter wanted constantly to press ahead and the former urged attention to strategic goals - especially tight encirclement and capture of Red soldiers. Guderian was particularly bad in this regard: he opted to seize the bridgehead at Yelnya instead of focusing on closing the Smolensk pocket; his Minsk encirclement was particularly porous; even in Taifun more Russians escaped from his Bryansk pocket than from Vyazma. Guderian's panzer group had the highest losses and loss rates - likely due to his impetuous aggression. The Ostheer might have been better off sending Guderian to Africa with Rommel.

A clear mandate from Hitler/OKH to pause at a Riga-Minsk line would have forced Guderian and the other generals to focus on sealing their pockets rather than setting up the next frantic advance. Besides saving fuel and vehicle wear, it would have resulted in more Russian losses.

Additionally, the Smolensk battle would probably have gone at least as well after a pause, despite more time for the RKKA to prepare defenses. The OTL Smolensk battle was a shit-show despite the big prisoner haul. The panzer spearheads, isolated from infantry still moving up from the Minsk/Bialysotk battles when the panzers took off, suffered serious infantry losses defending for too long against counterattacks on every side.

Contrasting Smolensk with Vyazma/Bryansk is instructive. In Taifun the infantry started from the same longitude as the panzers, who weren't required to hold the front without support for as long. Despite months to prepare defenses, RKKA couldn't stop the panzer spearheads. Very few units escaped from the Vyazma kessel.

A ground-up conception of Barbarossa as a longer campaign would likely motivate a shift from sloppy advance and porous encirclements towards a more deliberate advance and tighter encirclements. That would have been very good for the Heer.
MarkN wrote:Lots and lots of hot air and words, but no substance.
That's all you've added here. Despite my disagreements with Hanny and Mr. Anderson, they at least come with facts. You've added literally nothing but catty remarks. Read more and/or think harder, please.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#312

Post by ljadw » 17 Jul 2019, 05:52

The proposal of The Marcksplan,which is to fight a long war far away from Germany against an enemy with greater manpower and industrial reserves,is something the German military leadership had rejected in 1940,because it would not succeed and because, if it succeeded, it would not help Germany as it violated an important military principle ,which is : if general time is fighting against you,dont fight a long war, but fight a short war .
The longer the war, the stronger Germany's opponents would become . Thus .......
That's why I have more trust in what the OKH/the OKW and Hitler said and did,than what The MarcksPlan is proposing,especially as The MarcksPlan totally ignores even the presence of the Soviets : if the German strategy changes, the Soviet strategy and trhe Western strategy change,but The Marcksplan prefers to ignore this .

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#313

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 17 Jul 2019, 08:16

ljadw wrote: I have more trust in what the OKH/the OKW and Hitler said and did
lol
ljadw wrote:if general time is fighting against you,dont fight a long war, but fight a short war .
"Win quickly" is not a strategy; it's a goal. Strategy is how you attain your goals given your resources and obstacles.
This is like saying your financial strategy is "get rich."
"Win quickly with no plan B" is anti-strategy.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

antwony
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Jun 2016, 10:14
Location: Not at that place

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#314

Post by antwony » 17 Jul 2019, 09:26

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 23:54
antwony wrote:your Anglophobia's moronic
If your feelings are hurt, maybe this will make you feel better: The US acted far worse in this period than the UK by sitting and doing nothing except literally returning Jewish refugees to be murdered by Hitler. Am I anti-American now too?
I'm a mentally stable adult, I have no emotional connection with comments on the internet
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 23:54
Am I anti-American now too?
I don’t care.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 23:54
I've provided ample citation to Finnish territorial ambitions though the Wikipedia article and its references alone. If you want to believe the simple story about Finland I won't try any further to dissuade you.
I haven’t seen any of your citations, but you haven’t been (accurately) quoting Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s pages on Finland in WW2 are all, some kind of, correct. All of your statements I corrected were wrong.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 23:54
If you want to believe the simple story about Finland I won't try any further to dissuade you.
How is correcting your fundamental errors me believing ”the simple story”? It would be nice if posters on this forum could discuss matters they’re more familiar with than wiki articles. Unfortunately, you’re not quite there. If wiki's the source for your erroneous statements, you have some serious comprehension issues, which does seem very consistent with the opinions you keep spamming the board with.
MarkN wrote:
17 Jul 2019, 00:36
Nope. Keep posting. AHF is a fun site. Full of giggles. Who's interested in discussing history anyway?
I particularly like how an ostensibly right wing American poster tries to support his argument by mentioning Tooze (who he clearly hasn’t read/ understood) and Kotkin (whose level of dumb is easier to grasp).

The; British, Champagne Socialist, brought up by a KGB agent,Tooze and Kotkin, from the hippy bourgeois utopia that is the University of Berkeley, must be horrified to see their names taken in vain to advance a C-grade Wehraboos make-believe
Last edited by antwony on 17 Jul 2019, 09:44, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

#315

Post by Hanny » 17 Jul 2019, 09:39

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
17 Jul 2019, 00:04
Is anyone confused by the names on the quotes and comments in this post?
As i mentioned, he is arguing with himself.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”