Print Page | Close Window

If the Nazis conquered the USSR?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19767
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2024 at 10:23
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: If the Nazis conquered the USSR?
Posted By: antisocrates
Subject: If the Nazis conquered the USSR?
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 20:38
How do you think the course of WWII would've progressed if the Nazis knocked out Russia by early 1942?  How they did is up to you; maybe the Nazis drove to Moscow instead of stopping and actually took it; maybe the offensives in 42 all succeeded; etc., etc., etc. 
 
The important thing is that Russia is in shambles and unable to offer any organized resistance to Germany, even if the Nazis failed to take whole of Russia.  Maybe the Nazis conquered all the way up to the Ural complex and all the way down to Iran.  In any case, the scenario posits that the Nazis will be able to concentrate exclusively on the Western Front by mid to late 1942 *AND* their conquest of European Russia did not entail losses anywhere close to the real history Stalingrad or Kursk losses.  Perhaps 50 or more intact divisions could be moved to the West.
 
How would this WWII end?
 
For one thing, I think Britain would be the key here.  If it falls before 45, then the Manhattan Project would be meaningless (mostly); without secure air base in Europe, there would be no means of delivering the bomb.  And I would think that Suez would fall in this scenario, because Rommel would be able to get the necessary supplies, and Montgomery would not have the numerical and materiel advantage he had in real history.



Replies:
Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 15-May-2007 at 15:15
I would have to agree with the theory proposed by Robert Harris in his novel "Fatherland". The means by which the Nazis would accomplish this would probably similar to the proposed plans of "The Hitler Options". Check both of those out, you can Wikipedia Fatherland and get the basic idea of what a Nazified Europe would be like. Personally I believe that the Nazis would've won if not for Hitler. Hitler often disregarded the orders of his own generals and played into his vanity and personal vendettas instead of doing the "right" thing. He stopped the advance to Dunkirk for reasons only known to him (some historians believe it to be the efficacy of Belgian artillery) therefore allowing Operation Dynamo to evacuate vital amounts of soldiers, even though they had to leave indispensable guns behind. He then decided to blitz London instead of continuing attacks on RAF fields due to the fact he was angry that the British bombed Berlin and other cities. By bombing London, he allowed the English to reestablish some important RAF bases, thus never succeeding in air supremacy over Britain. Then he quickly turned his attention to the USSR when his attempts failed to stifle the British. When his generals suggested a second drive to Moscow, he chose Stalingrad, which was not an entirely bad idea but he required two important Russian bastions be taken simultaneously. All in all he asked impossible tasks relative to his own personal desires. I think if Hitler died in 1941 and Heydrich took over or something along those lines, we might have seen a Nazi Europe.

-------------
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail


Posted By: Ironduke
Date Posted: 15-May-2007 at 21:45
People often mistakenly assume that a Nazi conquest of Moscow would knock the Soviet Union out of the war.  They frequently forget that the Nazi spearhead toward Moscow was logistically overextended, with their southern flank wide open to attack.

A couple links for those who may be interested:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/failures.htm - http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/failures.htm

And a rather long debate on my own forum, at 1234 replies with many military experts weighing in:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/history-warfare/3123-could-germany-have-won-wwii.html - http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/history-warfare/3123-could-germany-have-won-wwii.html


-------------
Admin of the http://www.worldaffairsboard.com - World Affairs Board
Geopolitical, Military, & Defense Discussion
351,000 posts - 4,100 members


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 04:15
The Col was rather adament that it could not be done IIRC. But I also posted a topic there with an article called "Barbarossa Re visted" which argued that it could have won the war for Germany. Could you post that?
Thanks.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 07:16
Originally posted by Ironduke

People often mistakenly assume that a Nazi conquest of Moscow would knock the Soviet Union out of the war.  They frequently forget that the Nazi spearhead toward Moscow was logistically overextended, with their southern flank wide open to attack.

 
 
I would tend to agree with that. The Russian government would simply retreat east. A comparison exists with the Japanese in China, the occupation tied down most of their army and all of their best troops, effectively costing them the war against the allies. Germany would be in a similar boat occupying only the west of the Soviet Union with a decade or long to task ahead to control the whole country.


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 07:23
if soviet russia was not a factor, then i think the war would have lasted until nukes got brought into germany in some way, either through britain or from the east. most likeley a night raid from an aircraft carrier in the atlantic though


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 10:37
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by Ironduke

People often mistakenly assume that a Nazi conquest of Moscow would knock the Soviet Union out of the war.  They frequently forget that the Nazi spearhead toward Moscow was logistically overextended, with their southern flank wide open to attack.

 
 
I would tend to agree with that. The Russian government would simply retreat east. A comparison exists with the Japanese in China, the occupation tied down most of their army and all of their best troops, effectively costing them the war against the allies. Germany would be in a similar boat occupying only the west of the Soviet Union with a decade or long to task ahead to control the whole country.
 
Definitely, though it is something to think about. In Napoleon's time, Tsar simply fled from Moscow to seek refuge in St. Petersburg. But Stalin, against his advisors' wishes, refused to leave Moscow. Depending on how crazy Stalin would have at that time... but if Stalin stayed in Moscow and died, the Russian resistance would certainly be weakened unless another strong Russian leader is found.
 
If Soviet Union falls.... wow, that would really suck. Nazi Germany can easily concentrate their army to North Africa, and Middle East for plenty of oil supplies. That would tick the Americans for sure, and their industrial might may fade over the time. Britain's economy is dying, and their manpower is not enought to face Germans directly... so all they can do is watch and wait for American reinforcement... but I don't know if Americans can take on Japanese, Germans and oil blockade...


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 11:22
I agree that the Nazis would never conquer the USSR, endless guerilla warfare and resistance would follow, but the USSR would become a rump state and it would be substantially weakened.  I think zealo has a good idea, if the USSR was defeated, the war would be endless until one side nuked the other.

-------------
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail


Posted By: DesertHistorian
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 12:11
Even if some how Nazi Germany defeated the USSR by 1942, and were some how able to free up more troops and equipment for the Western front, the addition of the United States into the war would have eventually led to the same outcome. Mainly because the United States industrial centers were not open to attack, and even with the German U-boats operating in the North Atlantic, they could not stop the fleets of Liberty ships going to England with supplies and troops. The US was building them faster than the Germans could sink them, so the outcome would have eventually been the same, although maybe delayed by a year or so.
 
One of the biggest turning points on the Western front, other than the Battle of Britain, was the introduction of US heavy bombers, B-17's, B-24's, B26, as they had the advantage in range and bomb load, something the Germans were never able to match. That would have contributed to the same outcomes as the Germans lagged in their development and use of jet fighters, and V-2 weapons.
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by antisocrates

How do you think the course of WWII would've progressed if the Nazis knocked out Russia by early 1942?  How they did is up to you; maybe the Nazis drove to Moscow instead of stopping and actually took it; maybe the offensives in 42 all succeeded; etc., etc., etc. 
 
The important thing is that Russia is in shambles and unable to offer any organized resistance to Germany, even if the Nazis failed to take whole of Russia.  Maybe the Nazis conquered all the way up to the Ural complex and all the way down to Iran.  In any case, the scenario posits that the Nazis will be able to concentrate exclusively on the Western Front by mid to late 1942 *AND* their conquest of European Russia did not entail losses anywhere close to the real history Stalingrad or Kursk losses.  Perhaps 50 or more intact divisions could be moved to the West.
 
How would this WWII end?
 
For one thing, I think Britain would be the key here.  If it falls before 45, then the Manhattan Project would be meaningless (mostly); without secure air base in Europe, there would be no means of delivering the bomb.  And I would think that Suez would fall in this scenario, because Rommel would be able to get the necessary supplies, and Montgomery would not have the numerical and materiel advantage he had in real history.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 14:54
Originally posted by DesertHistorian

One of the biggest turning points on the Western front, other than the Battle of Britain, was the introduction of US heavy bombers, B-17's, B-24's, B26, as they had the advantage in range and bomb load, something the Germans were never able to match. That would have contributed to the same outcomes as the Germans lagged in their development and use of jet fighters, and V-2 weapons.
 
 
I really think the allied bombing campaign had little effect on the outcome of the war.
 
I would also hardly consider these planes heavy bombers, I think medium bombers would be more accurate.
B17 - 2724kg bomb load
B24 - 3992kg
B26 - 1818kg
 
I think the status heavy bombers more suits these planes.
Lancaster - 9800kg bomb load
B29 - 9070kg
 
 
 


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 11:11
This is an alternative history scenario and needs to be in the Historical Amusement forum.  I will move it there.  Thanks!

-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 15:58
Even if Hitler had conquered Russia I doubt  that It would have had any outcombe on the result of the war except maybe make it last a little longer.  Remember Germany without having a second front could not defeat the UK in 1940.  Britain was getting stronger and stronger  but still kept the bulk of her army & air force at home ( and the strongest elements of the Royal Navy in home waters). This concentration of forces for home defence actually cost us dear in the middle east and especially in the far east where limited resources ensured intial defeat against Japan.
 
This concentration of forces in the UK would have ensured that a German invasion of the UK would be doomed to failure whenever it took place. Once the USA in the war the outcome was decided. How and when were the only unknown factors and the result of the war in Russia would have had little effect in the final  outcome in the end


-------------
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 18:33
Originally posted by ChickenShoes

I agree that the Nazis would never conquer the USSR, endless guerilla warfare and resistance would follow, but the USSR would become a rump state and it would be substantially weakened.  I think zealo has a good idea, if the USSR was defeated, the war would be endless until one side nuked the other.
 
At that time, nuke would be really a psychological weapon. It took about three years just to produce one atomic bomb. How many of them could US possibily make before Germany turns to Britain? And Japan will be reinforced to distract US troops in the Pacific. US would go for Germans first, since if Britain falls... US falls as well. Germans would pay more attention to Japan, and send some men to upgrade the Japanese army. North African front will be easily taken out by Germans... but Britain still has sea and air supremacy. Hmm... let's see. I heard that Germans were working on air fighters using jet fuels... which may have challenged and even beat the Britain's air supremacy. And once this happen, sea supremacy will slowly lose its signifance. Many German invaders will die in sea, but there will be enough to land if Germans get air superiority... and once Germans land... Britain's out of the game. Only US and perhaps China have chance against the Axis.
 
China's effective resistance looks doubtful, since Japan was able to dominate China even when US began their counterattack, which would not happen since Germans are still in the game. With German help, Japan might be able to regain air supremacy (Zero with jet fuels sound scary to any air forces). But Germans should make sure that as America weakens, Germans should plan their inevitable betrayal against Japan.


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 18:46
Originally posted by aghart

Even if Hitler had conquered Russia I doubt  that It would have had any outcombe on the result of the war except maybe make it last a little longer.  Remember Germany without having a second front could not defeat the UK in 1940.  Britain was getting stronger and stronger  but still kept the bulk of her army & air force at home ( and the strongest elements of the Royal Navy in home waters). This concentration of forces for home defence actually cost us dear in the middle east and especially in the far east where limited resources ensured intial defeat against Japan.
 
This concentration of forces in the UK would have ensured that a German invasion of the UK would be doomed to failure whenever it took place. Once the USA in the war the outcome was decided. How and when were the only unknown factors and the result of the war in Russia would have had little effect in the final  outcome in the end
 
What was the goal of invading Russia?  To get its strategic oil reserves and open another corridor to the middle east.  The middle east and subsequently north africa.  There is the chance that Turkey and Iran would have become client states and supplied more man power, German trained and led like the romanian and other axis forces.  From there North Africa would be attacked from two fronts and India would be left wide open from the west with the japanese encraoching from the East.
 
Britain's empire would be smashed.
 
How does that weigh into the equation?


-------------


Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 22:42
 What was the goal of invading Russia?  To get its strategic oil reserves and open another corridor to the middle east.  The middle east and subsequently north africa.  There is the chance that Turkey and Iran would have become client states and supplied more man power, German trained and led like the romanian and other axis forces.  From there North Africa would be attacked from two fronts and India would be left wide open from the west with the japanese encraoching from the East.
 
Britain's empire would be smashed.
 
How does that weigh into the equation?
[/QUOTE]
 
The goal was to kill all the 'inhuman' races of the USSR and provide living space for the German people.


-------------
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 00:24
Originally posted by ChickenShoes

 What was the goal of invading Russia?  To get its strategic oil reserves and open another corridor to the middle east.  The middle east and subsequently north africa.  There is the chance that Turkey and Iran would have become client states and supplied more man power, German trained and led like the romanian and other axis forces.  From there North Africa would be attacked from two fronts and India would be left wide open from the west with the japanese encraoching from the East.
 
Britain's empire would be smashed.
 
How does that weigh into the equation?
 
The goal was to kill all the 'inhuman' races of the USSR and provide living space for the German people.
 
Don't underestimate Britain. They are more powerful than you think. Until Germans manage to land on Britain, German victory is not guaranteed. The mass production of jet fighters may change the tide of air warfare... but I don't think Germans can gain sea superiority.


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: think
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 01:25
If Germany could take the East then i dont see how the Americans could take the West, no way man.

Before you ask why America couldnt, think of this first. How many casualties was America willing to take before the war became severely unpopular ?

Could the Americans take a full frontal assualt from the Wehrmacht, SS an Luftwaffe ?

Remember the camps had not been found yet, there was so ammunition to use against the Germans. More or less there was no propoganda to send home..



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 06:26
Originally posted by ChickenShoes

Originally posted by Zagros

 What was the goal of invading Russia?  To get its strategic oil reserves and open another corridor to the middle east.  The middle east and subsequently north africa.  There is the chance that Turkey and Iran would have become client states and supplied more man power, German trained and led like the romanian and other axis forces.  From there North Africa would be attacked from two fronts and India would be left wide open from the west with the japanese encraoching from the East.
 
Britain's empire would be smashed.
 
How does that weigh into the equation?
 
The goal was to kill all the 'inhuman' races of the USSR and provide living space for the German people.
 
No that wasn't the goal, that was justification, the Germans' entitlement to those resources.  Every war documentary on the subject I have watched, at least every objective one has stated this to be the goal.
 
Pekau, Britain would not have been able to match the battle hardened Germans of the Eastern front in the middle east had they won, no way - far too overstretched for one thing. 


-------------


Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 11:17

If Germany enacted Operation Sphinx or Felix they probably could have won. That Operation involved seizing Gibraltar, Malta, and eventually Egypt. A few months of strangulating Britain in the Mediterranean and depriving them from Eastern supplies would have crushed them. Then Operation Sea Lion would have been irresistable. British archives opened in the late 90's showed that Churchill was so close to being replaced in office by Lord Halifax, an appeaser of the 30's. So say something like Sphinx happened, Churchill would definitely have been ousted because he was prepared to fight until every Brit lay dead with a Union Jack in his hand.



-------------
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail


Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 11:21
Originally posted by think

If Germany could take the East then i dont see how the Americans could take the West, no way man.

Before you ask why America couldnt, think of this first. How many casualties was America willing to take before the war became severely unpopular ?

Could the Americans take a full frontal assualt from the Wehrmacht, SS an Luftwaffe ?

Remember the camps had not been found yet, there was so ammunition to use against the Germans. More or less there was no propoganda to send home..

 
I totally agree with you. American casualties in Europe were only 250,000...that's absolutely nothing. Also, at the end of the war, the American government was securing the safety of some terrible Nazis like Klaus Barbie in order to receive intelligence against the Soviets. The Americans hoped to occupy as much of the West as it good in order to secure horizons for a war against the USSR, but that would have been incredibly unpopular at home.


-------------
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 12:26
Originally posted by ChickenShoes

If Germany enacted Operation Sphinx or Felix they probably could have won. That Operation involved seizing Gibraltar, Malta, and eventually Egypt.

 
I think the British navy can still enter Mediteranean even if Nazi can capture the Gibraltar, can't they?
 
Capturing Malta is what Axis power must have done, but they didn't! They would have been able to reinforce Rommels' troops with tanks as promised. But since Germans concentrated their focus on Operation Barbarossa, little reinforcement was given to Rommel. And those little reinforcement (Especially tanks) were sunk by British forces in Malta. Seriously, why didn't they took that island? Not that I am complaining, of course.
 
If Malta is secured, it's likely that Rommel would have barged all the way to Cairo... and even Middle East, if he gets extra reinforcement from Italy.


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 00:20
If the nazis had won in Russia, they would have had to face an even Bigger "problem".
 
The simple fact that Russia was, and still is, a very Large country, spread out between whole continents, would mean that they would have to be able to deal with Russian "gurilla warfare", after all of the major cities have fallen. This would in turn, spread the nazi forces extremely thin, thinner than it was already spread.
 
In order to fully Conquer Russia, an invader would need to STABILIZE the Entire territory of this VAST nation. Keep in mind that Russia's population was and still is, also very VAST. 


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 01:03
Originally posted by Penelope

If the nazis had won in Russia, they would have had to face an even Bigger "problem".
 
The simple fact that Russia was, and still is, a very Large country, spread out between whole continents, would mean that they would have to be able to deal with Russian "gurilla warfare", after all of the major cities have fallen. This would in turn, spread the nazi forces extremely thin, thinner than it was already spread.
 
In order to fully Conquer Russia, an invader would need to STABILIZE the Entire territory of this VAST nation. Keep in mind that Russia's population was and still is, also very VAST. 
 
Not entire area. Just key points like Moscow, St. Petersburg and some oil fields. Resistance without Stalin or anyone like him would be as bad as the Chinese resistance against Japanese.
 
Look at it this way. Germans maintaining Soviet Union is like Britain trying to maintain the sea. Britain don't have to send ships to cover all the bodies of water. They just need to control some strategic areas, like Malta and Gibraltar.
 
Even when Operation Barbarossa went smoothly, Russians were able to make fierce resistance. This is because they simply moved their production zones to the further east. (Ex. moving all industries to Ural Mountain) Without the key strategic positions and being cut off from Western aids... even Russians don't have chance.
 
I suspect that America would send aids by heading to Northern Pacific. They would not do this normally, but Americans need constant Russian resistance to ensure America' security as well.
 
That's where Japan will play the key part, I think. Germans will help Japan by giving them some advantages (Jet technology to reclaim Japan's air supremacy, maybe?) But Germans are smart enough to make sure that they don't help Japan out too much... for they will have to conquer Japan in the future.


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 22:29
Originally posted by pekau

Originally posted by ChickenShoes

If Germany enacted Operation Sphinx or Felix they probably could have won. That Operation involved seizing Gibraltar, Malta, and eventually Egypt.

 
I think the British navy can still enter Mediteranean even if Nazi can capture the Gibraltar, can't they?
 
Capturing Malta is what Axis power must have done, but they didn't! They would have been able to reinforce Rommels' troops with tanks as promised. But since Germans concentrated their focus on Operation Barbarossa, little reinforcement was given to Rommel. And those little reinforcement (Especially tanks) were sunk by British forces in Malta. Seriously, why didn't they took that island? Not that I am complaining, of course.
 
If Malta is secured, it's likely that Rommel would have barged all the way to Cairo... and even Middle East, if he gets extra reinforcement from Italy.
 
Very much agreed, but if they captured Gibraltar, Malta, and Egypt, all British forces there are stuck. How else will the British enter the Mediterranean if everything West of Egypt already belongs to the Nazis? It wouldn't have worked though, they would have been forced to utilize the Italian military which is like being shackled to a corpse.


-------------
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 23:50
Originally posted by pekau

Originally posted by Penelope

If the nazis had won in Russia, they would have had to face an even Bigger "problem".
 
The simple fact that Russia was, and still is, a very Large country, spread out between whole continents, would mean that they would have to be able to deal with Russian "gurilla warfare", after all of the major cities have fallen. This would in turn, spread the nazi forces extremely thin, thinner than it was already spread.
 
In order to fully Conquer Russia, an invader would need to STABILIZE the Entire territory of this VAST nation. Keep in mind that Russia's population was and still is, also very VAST. 
 
Not entire area. Just key points like Moscow, St. Petersburg and some oil fields. Resistance without Stalin or anyone like him would be as bad as the Chinese resistance against Japanese.
 
Look at it this way. Germans maintaining Soviet Union is like Britain trying to maintain the sea. Britain don't have to send ships to cover all the bodies of water. They just need to control some strategic areas, like Malta and Gibraltar.
 
Even when Operation Barbarossa went smoothly, Russians were able to make fierce resistance. This is because they simply moved their production zones to the further east. (Ex. moving all industries to Ural Mountain) Without the key strategic positions and being cut off from Western aids... even Russians don't have chance.
 
I suspect that America would send aids by heading to Northern Pacific. They would not do this normally, but Americans need constant Russian resistance to ensure America' security as well.
 
That's where Japan will play the key part, I think. Germans will help Japan by giving them some advantages (Jet technology to reclaim Japan's air supremacy, maybe?) But Germans are smart enough to make sure that they don't help Japan out too much... for they will have to conquer Japan in the future.
 
Good points. And Yes, the United States would definately invade Russia as well, from Asia.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 13:12
It really does not matter because they would not be able to hold it for long no one in any time past the middle ages has been able to hold russia. even if the nazis did cripple the russian army russia still has two major advatages. one is its enormas size this is mostly why no one has been able to hold russia and the russian winter they can bearly handle it them selves how are the germans going to do it.

-------------


Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 12:11
Originally posted by Lord Dumnorix

It really does not matter because they would not be able to hold it for long no one in any time past the middle ages has been able to hold russia. even if the nazis did cripple the russian army russia still has two major advatages. one is its enormas size this is mostly why no one has been able to hold russia and the russian winter they can bearly handle it them selves how are the germans going to do it.
 
a lot of this space you speak of barely has civilization in it. a lot of russia is woodland or uninhabitable permafrost.


-------------
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 12:22
I know space issue is merely an excuse, but Russia do have lots of land. Though of of Russian lands are uninhaitable as you say, all the Western areas of Russia is still bigger than modern France. That's a lot of space, if you ask me...

-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 01:14
Originally posted by ChickenShoes

Originally posted by Lord Dumnorix

It really does not matter because they would not be able to hold it for long no one in any time past the middle ages has been able to hold russia. even if the nazis did cripple the russian army russia still has two major advatages. one is its enormas size this is mostly why no one has been able to hold russia and the russian winter they can bearly handle it them selves how are the germans going to do it.
 
a lot of this space you speak of barely has civilization in it. a lot of russia is woodland or uninhabitable permafrost.
 
Yes, but if the Russians were on the verge of being conquered, they would definately have to utilize those areas, especially if the people had chosen not to submit to the invader.


Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 14:02
 
Yes, but if the Russians were on the verge of being conquered, they would definately have to utilize those areas, especially if the people had chosen not to submit to the invader.
[/QUOTE]
 
oh yeah definitely. they probably would have moved behind the Urals and had administration at Omsk or Ufa or something, but it would have been guerilla warfare not a large army versus another, most of the Red Army would have already surrendered.


-------------
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 22:23
Originally posted by ChickenShoes

 
Yes, but if the Russians were on the verge of being conquered, they would definately have to utilize those areas, especially if the people had chosen not to submit to the invader.
 
oh yeah definitely. they probably would have moved behind the Urals and had administration at Omsk or Ufa or something, but it would have been guerilla warfare not a large army versus another, most of the Red Army would have already surrendered.
[/QUOTE]
 
Exactly, Guerilla Warfare.


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 22:58
It seems most likely that had the Germans captured European Russia, the a government in Asian Russia would have continued the fight with massive partisan assistance inside European Russia.

-------------


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 23:17
Asian Russian forces... how effective would they be really?

-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 23:22
Originally posted by pekau

Asian Russian forces... how effective would they be really?


The USSR's Siberian troops were considered some of the best, extremely tough and able to withstand cold temperatures.

By this stage the USSR had moved much of its production capabilities east of the Ural mountains anyway. With good production capabilities, good quality soldiers and a decent amount of the Soviet population under its control, the USSR could have made a strike back provided they maintained control of their remaining provinces.


-------------


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-May-2007 at 16:37
Originally posted by Penelope

 Good points. And Yes, the United States would definately invade Russia as well, from Asia.
 
 
What? I said that Americans will help Russians, not attacking! Americans want to make sure that Russian resistance against Germany lives... Americans may stay out of war, but Americans simply watching Nazi Germany to take over Soviet Union sounds doubtful. Remember, once Soviet Union falls, America is next. Japan will follow the suit. I wonder, would the rise of Nazi Germany cause the Japanese Empire and America to combine their forces to maintain the balance of power?


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: aslanlar
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 04:57
Blitzkrieg was the revolutionary new battle technique and it required speed and suprise. However, Opperation Barbarossa was delayed by a month (about) when Italy needed help in taking the Baltic and Southern Europe. Because of this, although the German forces got close to Moscow (which would of seen an end to organized russian armies), they froze to death! The Russian winters are notoriously cold and not only did German soldiers only have summer clothing, but the oil for machinery froze, making them slow and extremely volnerable. If it wasn't for Italy, i think Hitler and his army would of defeated the USSR.
Also, opperation Sealion was never anything serious, it was an attempt that Hitler saw couldn't succeed and he gave up on it (If only he had radar :) ).
Like many others around, I think Germany would succeed in taking all of europe, but then be nuked. (But i don't think they would take Britain, it would result in too high casualties)


Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 09:57
opperation Sealion was serious, if the Luftwaffe didn't stop bombing the air fields, the RAF would lost!
And the German air superiority would destroy the Royal Navy, because the WWII battelships had no chance against air attacks.
Without Britain Barbarossa would be sucessful, because the Germans could use poisen gas in USSR without RAF poisengas threat!


Posted By: aslanlar
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 11:16

Well sealion was serious but not to the extent of Hitler's ambitions of the USSR and France. Hitler did not want a war with Britain (and he had succeeded in removing them from France) and tried to quickly take control of the strait so that Britain was helpless. It was just a battle that would prove decisive if Britain remained in the war or not. However, i highly doubt that it was the victory of Britain that foiled Hitler's plans to defeat the USSR. It was the winter that slowed down the German army to a complete hault. It was the VERY VERY cold weather that destroyed the Germans, hundreds of thousands died from disease and frostbite. Also, this gave Stalin time to withdraw the Siberian Regiments (who were very efficient) from the eastern border (Japan) and to bring them against the Germans. I don't see how the USSR could possibly of defended itself if Germany had attacked 1 month earlier (or more).



Posted By: antisocrates
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2007 at 21:09
One thing to remember is that it took Stalin a decade or more to move the old Czarist industrial complex to the Urals, at tremendous human and economic cost, and that during peacetime.  If Germans hypothetically defeat Russians and either destroy or occupy the Urals complex, I do not see how they can offer any meaningful resistance.  Yes, there will be partisan warfare, but that won't be significant, given that the Nazis would be willing to engage in wholesale genocide of the Russians if necessary.  Remember that the Nazis never had the time to root their administration in Russia before the Soviets counterattacked.   If the Russians are completely destroyed militarily, the Nazi death squads can make short work of the "enemy", i.e., simply exterminate the entire population, village by village, city by city, province by province.
 
Furthermore, most of the Slavic Russian population is in European Russia.  Yes, Siberian regiments are tough, but they would be of little use without tanks and airplanes, and besides, they themselves would not be numerous enough to make difference.  The conquest of European Russia, including the Urals and Caspian oil fields, would cripple the capacity of Russia to engage in mechanical warfare.  There would be no Kursk, only slaughter of infantry against panzers and stukas.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2007 at 23:03
Russia have taken out at least 75% of Germany's and its allies forces.
 
Without Russia America would have to take the main hit. Would Americans be willing to sacrifice millions of soldiers in order to save Europe?
 
It's one thing to invade Normandy when all the best troops and Panzer divisions are in the East and another thing to face all the might of Wermacht on the narrow Western European Sea coast.
 
If Russia felt, Gemany would concentrate all the efforts on building new advanced weapons. Most likely they would be able to produce jet fighters and long range rocket earlier than 1944.
 
All the industrial power of Europe, including industry and resources of Russia would be concentrated by the Nazi Reich. I doubt, that England would be able to stay for a long time.
 
If Germans could concentrate all their military industry for building heavy bombers in stead of building tanks for the Russian front, they most likely would win the second air battle for Britain.
 
If even the initial landing of American troop in Western Europe would be succesful, what's next?
 
At this time Germans could retreat to the East for God knows how long time. It would be another Eastern Front (at this time with the Germans on the East).
 
It seems to me that if Germans defeat Russia, the real outcome of the war would be stalemate.
 
I am not sure whether Americans would risk the massive invasion in Europe. At the same time Germans wouldn't have enough naval power to defeat the US.
 
So may be they would made an uneasy truce for some time, but in some decade WW III would follow with a very doubtful outcome.
 
P.S. It is the easiest way to blame the Russian winter, or General Frost in the German failure on the East in 1941. However, in fact it was not winter and not General Frost, but a Russian soldier who by sacrifising his life defeated the Nazi monster near Moscow.
 
I think Hitler was one of the author of this "winter theory." Indeed, how come these inhuman-commi could stop the superior Teuthonic-Arian armada. It is impossible of course ! The winter was the reason !
 
 
 


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2007 at 23:21
Originally posted by aslanlar

However, Opperation Barbarossa was delayed by a month (about) when Italy needed help in taking the Baltic and Southern Europe. Because of this, although the German forces got close to Moscow (which would of seen an end to organized russian armies), they froze to death! The Russian winters are notoriously cold and not only did German soldiers only have summer clothing, but the oil for machinery froze, making them slow and extremely volnerable. If it wasn't for Italy, i think Hitler and his army would of defeated the USSR.
Also, opperation Sealion was never anything serious, it was an attempt that Hitler saw couldn't succeed and he gave up on it (If only he had radar :) ).
Like many others around, I think Germany would succeed in taking all of europe, but then be nuked. (But i don't think they would take Britain, it would result in too high casualties)
 
Yeah, it was the favorite explanation of the great Furher to blame in everything stupid Italians and Russian winter.  Why do not look for other reasons. Simply that the German Army was exhausted, while the Russians were able to get more and more reinforcements. German Army simply didn't have enough power to take Moscow in 1941 and the winter have nothing to do with it.
 
Don't you see that the best way to keep the high German morale was to blame winter but not the enemy in the defeat.
 
German troops were considered invincible so the only possible explanation for their failure in order to keep this myth further was to blame the harsh Russian climate.
 
May be it indeed helped to keep German moral for some time... But then Stalingrad and Kursk happened...
 
Strangely, Kursk happened in summer... I think this time the reason for the failure was the Red Heat or smth. like that LOL


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 19:25
Blame the winter? Seriously... Yes, the Germans suffered Russian winter, but so did Russians. Just because they are Russians does not mean they are supermans. They need clothing, food and warm shelter like Germans since they are all human beings. Many of the Russians were poor, their weapons crappy (If they had one) and their clothings worn, and no longer effective to keep them warm in brutal weather. Russian winter cerntainly halted the German advance, which gave Russians advantage... but Russians also suffered many deaths due to winter. Germans took over farms, burned shelters and blocked many good transportation routes that Russians relied on.
 
Much of the German failure should be blamed on poor German leadership because it is true. Germans were exhausted due to numerical disadvantage, yes. But they don't get too tired when all they have to do is press the triggers. They were mostly better clothed, sheltered and fed compared to Russian soldiers.
 
And of course, Hitler is not only to blame. Many of the German high commanders were jealous of the talented generals. (Ex. Rommel) If they supported the brilliant generals and did exactly what they wanted, Germans would have been much more successful.
 
One obvious flaw that many huge empires and nations face is stretching of supply lines and their armies being scattered. This cannot be helped, though it can be improved. The antisemetism caused many non-Germans to join German military willingly.


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 01:56
Originally posted by pekau

Just because they are Russians does not mean they are supermans. They need clothing, food and warm shelter like Germans since they are all human beings. Many of the Russians were poor, their weapons crappy (If they had one) and their clothings worn, and no longer effective to keep them warm in brutal weather. Russian winter cerntainly halted the German advance, which gave Russians advantage... but Russians also suffered many deaths due to winter. ... Germans were exhausted due to numerical disadvantage, yes. But they don't get too tired when all they have to do is press the triggers. They were mostly better clothed, sheltered and fed compared to Russian soldiers.


Well, no. They were actually woefully underequipped for winter conditions compared to the Russians:

The German tanks had narrow treads with little traction and poor flotation in mud. In contrast, the new generation of Soviet tanks such as the T-34 and KV were far more mobile. The 600,000 large western European horses the Germans used for supply and artillery movement did not cope well with this weather. The small ponies used by the Red Army were much better adapted to this climate and could even scrape the icy ground with their hooves to dig up the weeds beneath.

Equipment had been prepared for such winter conditions, but the ability to move it up front over the severely overstrained transport network did not exist. Consequently, the troops were not equipped with adequate cold-weather gear, and some soldiers had to pack newspapers into their jackets to stay warm while temperatures dropped to record levels of at least -30C (-22F). To operate furnaces and heaters, the Germans also burned precious fuel that was difficult to re-supply. Soviet soldiers often had warm, quilted uniforms, felt-lined boots, and fur hats.

Some German weapons malfunctioned in the cold. Lubricating oils were unsuitable for extreme cold, resulting in engine malfunction and misfiring weapons. To load shells into a tank’s main gun, frozen grease had to be chipped off with a knife. Soviet units faced less severe problems due to their experience with cold weather. Aircraft were supplied with insulating blankets to keep their engines warm while parked. Lighter-weight oil was used. Gasoline, which powered all German tanks and most of their trucks, was subject to freezing in the harsh winters. Most Soviet trucks and pre-war tanks also used gasoline, but diesel fuel used in the new-generation of Soviet tanks did not freeze in winter.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Faults_of_logistical_planning

The big problem with the German planning was that they had planned for a quick war, as all their previous conquests had been. They expected the Soviet forces to collapse long before winter and the troops did not carry winter supplies forward with them. By the time German command realized they would be fighting in the winter, it was impossible to issue winter gear to the men at the front. There were no roads and no usable rail lines to get it to them.

For the Germans, winter meant that the roads didn't work, their guns didn't work, their tanks couldn't move, their horses couldn't cope, and their aircraft took ages to scramble while the engines warmed up. It's actually surprising they were not reduced to throwing snowballs at the Russians. That they were able to retreat without being totally annihilated and routed is a real miracle and must have been accomplished with unbelievably extraordinary effort. I cannot imagine what it would have been like running logistics in those conditions - you wouldn't even know how much was getting through to the front.


Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 14:42
history is not made by "if" and "maybe"

-------------
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 17:21
Originally posted by Illirac

history is not made by "if" and "maybe"
 
You forgot that this section of the forum is called "Historical Amusement"
 
Big%20smile


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 12:54
well as u see i am new 

-------------
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.


Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 15:17
Clap
 edgewaters, perfect point. there are so many what-ifs of nazi victory it's sickening and it is my belief that hitler ruined them all (thank god). Sure generals were jealous of each other and wanted to outdo the other and ignore what was best in a tactical situation, but in a grand stratagem, they all had brilliant ideas that hitler stomped on for his fanatical and vain beliefs based on little to no knowledge of anything military. he was just an austrian-draft dodger with a penchant for snappy suits and cool salutes and his total and utter belief that he was infallable led to defeat.  


-------------
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 08:04

How can I say this without offending somebody? Hitler was human! Not only was he human but he was a leader, somehow he could collect together people that listened to him. What if he had been an idiot? Then he would have ended up being what he already was, a chest beating trade union leader. This one barking dog managed to slip the union lead, and came to power in a series of illegal but brilliant moves.

His grasp of war tactics seemed remarkably astute at first. Hit hard and fast before the sods have a chance to move. Some say this wisdom came on the advice of others but all leaders need cooperate with others to form a semblance of government. Early on he made a deal with the army and had the brownshirts liquidated; so he had to go along with the army recommendations for a while. He had an ace up his sleeve in formation of the Gestapo, they were not just into brutality but bending minds to suit their will by any means. Even the army became intimidated by their power.

One can see his continuing see-saw relationship with the generals in the way Rommel was treated, and he was no angel. At first the Generals raced across the Russia steppes taking this famous city and that famous city. Everybody in the German high command was happy until they had to admit their supply lines were over-extended and asked Hitler for more time and supplies to consolidate their victories.  

At that point he went berserk and told them to push on. Not only that but he would take personal command of operations. Many commanders were angry and flew back to talk to Hitler personally. Hitler did not lose his temper. He sat them down and used his great personal charm to convince them the war was being won, when actually each day any form of victory slipped further from of his grasp.

He could have made a tactical retreat and partitioned the territory already won. However, he had his evil heart set on capturing and making Stalingrad into a symbol of German might. That would have been a good move had the offensive been going to plan but the wheels were falling off so to speak, especially when winter came.  

What if the generals had their way? They may have stopped going forward altogether for no military advantage could be found in pressing on. Their supplies needed to be tripled and that was not about to happen. Troops needed to consolidate the Western front were tied down to favour a place where morale was never very high.  



-------------
elenos


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 18:41
I don't see how they could have done it. The Soviet citizens were pushed into battle by a brutal regime and had been indoctrinated beforehand. Although overall they had inferior weaponry to the Nazis (Well, apart from the T-34, PE-2 Peshka and others), the sheer size would have made it impossible, even if the Germans had managed to defeat the Soviets at Kursk and Stalingrad. If they did, they would have just got bogged down and down into the winter and probably would have eventually experienced gurellia warfare.

-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 20:53
I agree, the Germans never would have made it, withdrawal was their only real option but that was not to be. Had they pushed on and had impossible victories against the physical factors in their way they were still robbing peter to pay paul. The numbers of battle trained troops held down were desperately needed elsewhere.  

-------------
elenos


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 00:49
Originally posted by Earl Aster

I don't see how they could have done it. The Soviet citizens were pushed into battle by a brutal regime and had been indoctrinated beforehand. Although overall they had inferior weaponry to the Nazis (Well, apart from the T-34, PE-2 Peshka and others), the sheer size would have made it impossible, even if the Germans had managed to defeat the Soviets at Kursk and Stalingrad. If they did, they would have just got bogged down and down into the winter and probably would have eventually experienced gurellia warfare.
 
This is a very distorted picture of Sovier military capabilities. By the middle of the war Soviet Military production surprassed German not only by numbers but by the quality.
 
Soviet tanks, machine guns, aircrafts, tanks etc. not only were not inferior, but actually were better than German weapons.
 
You gave example of T-34, and perhaps about 80% of the Red Army's tank forces consited of this machine.
 
As about the numbers, the numbers didn't save Chinese from the defeats from Japanese. Even in 1944, when the war was going to the end Japanese were able to seriously beat, numerically much superior Chinese.
 
This war, was win not by numbers and winters, but mainly by Industrial production and access to the resources.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 19:11
Originally posted by Earl Aster

I don't see how they could have done it. The Soviet citizens were pushed into battle by a brutal regime and had been indoctrinated beforehand. Although overall they had inferior weaponry to the Nazis (Well, apart from the T-34, PE-2 Peshka and others), the sheer size would have made it impossible, even if the Germans had managed to defeat the Soviets at Kursk and Stalingrad. If they did, they would have just got bogged down and down into the winter and probably would have eventually experienced gurellia warfare.
 
This is a very distorted picture of Sovier military capabilities. By the middle of the war Soviet Military production surprassed German not only by numbers but by the quality.
 
Soviet tanks, machine guns, aircrafts, tanks etc. not only were not inferior, but actually were better than German weapons.
 
You gave example of T-34, and perhaps about 80% of the Red Army's tank forces consited of this machine.
 
As about the numbers, the numbers didn't save Chinese from the defeats from Japanese. Even in 1944, when the war was going to the end Japanese were able to seriously beat, numerically much superior Chinese.
 
This war, was win not by numbers and winters, but mainly by Industrial production and access to the resources.
 
...That's...just what I said in the brackets, Sarmat12 (add to that the Tokarev automatic rifle and the dagatarev machine gun, and the IL2 Sturmovik dive bomber). By speaking about inferior weaponry, I also mean the infrastructure of the logistics that the Soviets had - they had endless supply trouble, and the German supply system was much more advanced.
 
This war, was win not by numbers and winters, but mainly by Industrial production and access to the resources.
 
Quite, but numbers and winters had a pretty big part to play- ask any military historian of the 20th century. For the majority of invaders of Russia, it's been the winter and supplies, not so much the numbers, I would agree, but certainly the winter did play a large part, I would disagree with you there.
 

-------------


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 20:13
Originally posted by Earl Aster

Originally posted by Earl Aster

I don't see how they could have done it. The Soviet citizens were pushed into battle by a brutal regime and had been indoctrinated beforehand. Although overall they had inferior weaponry to the Nazis (Well, apart from the T-34, PE-2 Peshka and others), the sheer size would have made it impossible, even if the Germans had managed to defeat the Soviets at Kursk and Stalingrad. If they did, they would have just got bogged down and down into the winter and probably would have eventually experienced gurellia warfare.
 
This is a very distorted picture of Sovier military capabilities. By the middle of the war Soviet Military production surprassed German not only by numbers but by the quality.
 
Soviet tanks, machine guns, aircrafts, tanks etc. not only were not inferior, but actually were better than German weapons.
 
You gave example of T-34, and perhaps about 80% of the Red Army's tank forces consited of this machine.
 
As about the numbers, the numbers didn't save Chinese from the defeats from Japanese. Even in 1944, when the war was going to the end Japanese were able to seriously beat, numerically much superior Chinese.
 
This war, was win not by numbers and winters, but mainly by Industrial production and access to the resources.
 
...That's...just what I said in the brackets, Sarmat12 (add to that the Tokarev automatic rifle and the dagatarev machine gun, and the IL2 Sturmovik dive bomber). By speaking about inferior weaponry, I also mean the infrastructure of the logistics that the Soviets had - they had endless supply trouble, and the German supply system was much more advanced.
 
This war, was win not by numbers and winters, but mainly by Industrial production and access to the resources.
 
Quite, but numbers and winters had a pretty big part to play- ask any military historian of the 20th century. For the majority of invaders of Russia, it's been the winter and supplies, not so much the numbers, I would agree, but certainly the winter did play a large part, I would disagree with you there.
 
 
Please list this "majority of invaders":
 
Just the most famous ones: Mongolo-Tatars, Teutonian knights, Poles, Swedes (Charles XII), Napoleon, Germans.
 
Which one was defeated by winters? It's believed that Napoleon was. But, in fact, winter didn't play a big part in his defeat. Much bigger role was played by the poor supply sistem. All the other were defeated MILITARY by Russians.
 
As for the winters which defeated Germans in Russia, it was a myth created by Hitler in order to justify somehow the defeat of Arians by "the inferior race."
 
Simple as that.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 07:12
Oh. Fair enough- Modern world history isn't my forte, but I always thought that it was the winter. I don't understand, though - the red army was always renowned for being ill-equipped and undersupplied.

-------------


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 10:56
Originally posted by Earl Aster

Oh. Fair enough- Modern world history isn't my forte, but I always thought that it was the winter. I don't understand, though - the red army was always renowned for being ill-equipped and undersupplied.
 
This is a very dangerous myth, which actually let Germans to the trap.
 
Red Army was well-equiped and well supplied. The main difficulty it faced during the first stage of the war, was the bad command.
 
Stalin destroyed 80% of talented officer corpse during his "purges" in 1936-38.
 
Russian command at the beginning of the war (except some notable commanders like Zhukov) was a joke compare to German.
 
One of them Budennyi (the hero of the Russian Civil War) seriously considered the deployment of massive cavalry armies agaisnt the German tanks etc.
 
Besides, because of Stalin's shortsight (he prohibited any defence preparations, although he perfectly new form numerous sources that Germans were going to attack on June, 22) caused the terrible mess in the whole organization system of the Red Army in summer 1941.
 
This is why in that phase of the War Germans looked much superior. 60% of Soviet aircracfts were destroyed in the first hours after the invasion in the airfields. Tanks didn't had fuel, cause they were not expecting to go to the battle and so on.
 
Since the most of the military industry located in the Western part of the Soviet Union (which relatively fast was occupied by Germans) it took some time to restore near the Ural mointains, where a lot of military plants were relocated from Belorussia, Ukrain and Western Russia.
 
It indeed, caused some temporary problems with supplies, but not for a long. By the middle of 1942, Soviet military industry already started to overplay the German one.
 
However a lot of depended on the commanders. For example, brilliant Zhukov routed Japanese army in 1938 at the battle of Nomohan, even despite of the negative effect of the "purges." This defeat BTW caused Japan to believe that it wouldn't be able to defeat USSR on the land and instead it would be better to attack the Western Powers in the Pacific.
 
Some quotes concerning the battle, which are related to the Soviet army:
 
http://zhukov.mitsi.com/Russo.htm - http://zhukov.mitsi.com/Russo.htm
 
in 1938 and 1939 Japan faced a vastly different challenge from the Red Army successor to the Czarist armies neo-feudal levies, this time from a USSR, resilient in its Communist motherland defiance of a capitalist world. Japan's military leaders failed to register the Red Army's military competence, forged in the Russian civil war, honed by mutually advantageous assistance from German military experts in the 1920s, and given teeth through the mass production of superior armour, capable bombers and fighters, and up-to-date artillery. Japanese intelligence reported that Stalin's purges of the officer corps and the social dislocation and misery occasioned by the first Five Year Plan, and collectivization of agriculture, had weakened the USSR's capacity to respond to military challenge. They were wrong.
However, during the Finnish campaign in 1939, the Soviet Army performed much worse, again, mainly due to the TERRIBLE COMMAND, although having total material superiority over Finns.
 
Hitler made a wrong decision about the Soviet military capabilites after the Finnish campaign. Instead of examing the battle of Nomohan, which was a perfect evidence of the Soviet military might he focused on the winter war 1939-1940.
 
If commanded by able generals Soviet army was a very dangerous opponent for Germans, which unfortunately wasn't the case in 1941.
 
The reasons for the Soviet defeats were mainly the bad command and numerous flaws in Stalin's strategy, not the technical inferiority and bad organization.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 16:37
Yes, I suppose since the pact of steel in 1939(?), the Soviets were not expecting any kind of attack from the Nazis and their military was not mobilised. I've heard that Stalin did start a re-armourment programme (which further strengthens your point), but for that same reason, doesn't that suggest that he was expecting something to come? Stalin was an isolationalist and unlike Trotsky, didn't believe in invasion for furthering the cause of world communism. If that's the case, then what else could he have been arming for if he hadn't had suspected a Nazi invasion? I suppose the civil war would have made him suspicious of the new republics in Europe, but he can't have been re-armouring just for that...

-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 21:37
This discussion is getting so convoluted over who did what and why. Stalin rearmed for he suspected a Chinese invasion to the South. He couldn't live  the way he did without suspecting somebofy of something. The point is he had crack units all kitted ready up for winter to repel an Chinese invasion. Russia's finest skiers and marksmen sat there and twiddled their thumbs while the Germans invaded and yet were not released!


-------------
elenos


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 21:49
Originally posted by Earl Aster

Yes, I suppose since the pact of steel in 1939(?), the Soviets were not expecting any kind of attack from the Nazis and their military was not mobilised. I've heard that Stalin did start a re-armourment programme (which further strengthens your point), but for that same reason, doesn't that suggest that he was expecting something to come? Stalin was an isolationalist and unlike Trotsky, didn't believe in invasion for furthering the cause of world communism. If that's the case, then what else could he have been arming for if he hadn't had suspected a Nazi invasion? I suppose the civil war would have made him suspicious of the new republics in Europe, but he can't have been re-armouring just for that...
 
Of course he was expecting the attack. Both parties view the pact as a temporary measure to buy some time. SU and 3D reich were antagonists from the very beginning.
 
However, Stalin was convinced that the attack wouldn't start until 1943 and that Hitler would not attack until Britain was defeated. So, he supressed all the talks about the coming invasion and didn't trust the reliable reports from numerous sources which were saying about the attack even naming its exact date, June, 22. He believed that those rumors are "British provocations" etc.
 
When the invasion started he was very shocked. He said smth. like: Hitler fooled me, what a fool I am...
 
His "foolishness" caused USSR millions of lifes...


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 23:07
Originally posted by elenos

How can I say this without offending somebody? Hitler was human! Not only was he human but he was a leader, somehow he could collect together people that listened to him. What if he had been an idiot? Then he would have ended up being what he already was, a chest beating trade union leader. This one barking dog managed to slip the union lead, and came to power in a series of illegal but brilliant moves.

His grasp of war tactics seemed remarkably astute at first. Hit hard and fast before the sods have a chance to move. Some say this wisdom came on the advice of others but all leaders need cooperate with others to form a semblance of government. Early on he made a deal with the army and had the brownshirts liquidated; so he had to go along with the army recommendations for a while. He had an ace up his sleeve in formation of the Gestapo, they were not just into brutality but bending minds to suit their will by any means. Even the army became intimidated by their power

 
 
 
 
I wouldn't say his military notions were even remarkably astute in the beginning. He was a master politician with an amazing poker face. He was skilled in the art of manipulation, but he did not invent blitzkrieg or any of the tactics used in World War II, he just oversaw them.


-------------
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 00:48
You have a point there ChickenShoes. The master politician knows how to delegate and get what advice they most need from others. All the Nazi tactics had been invented but he allowed for them to happen. For instance the strafing of refugee civilians on the roads to slow down the advance of enemy troops. A cold blooded thing to do but highly effective as a tactic.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 07:24
Of course he was expecting the attack. Both parties view the pact as a temporary measure to buy some time. SU and 3D reich were antagonists from the very beginning.
 
Well, I suppose when you have two diametrically opposed superpowers right next to eachother, something's going to happen...


-------------


Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 12:57
Originally posted by elenos

You have a point there ChickenShoes. The master politician knows how to delegate and get what advice they most need from others. All the Nazi tactics had been invented but he allowed for them to happen. For instance the strafing of refugee civilians on the roads to slow down the advance of enemy troops. A cold blooded thing to do but highly effective as a tactic.
 
 
thanks!Smile, i def agre with you!


-------------
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 04:58
I was thinking of an actual example ChickenShoes and have pulled out some of my notes for a future book.

By 1940 Britain had declared war. The British Channel Islands never declared war hoping to remain neutral. They are near the coast of France, between the French provinces of Normandy and Brittany. The Channel Islands became the only portion of the British Isles to be invaded and occupied by German forces during the war.

On June 17 France asked Germany for terms of surrender. On June 28, traffic lined the high street of St Peter Port in Guernsey, the waterfront of the harbor capitol. Most of the traffic was trucks laden with greenhouse tomatoes. They waited to load their produce onto boats bound for England. A dull thunder rolled in the sky, rose to a constant roar, then the planes swooped. Cannon fire raked the road and incendiary bombs sent up smoke and flames as the vegetable trucks exploded. Blood and tomatoes stained the cobbled streets and wharfs.

(Reports from the London Times)

The Channel Islands Raids.

 The death toll was 33. In Guernsey 23 were killed and 36
injured. 10 were killed and several more injured in Jersey.

 The Ministry of Information stated last night.

As it has already been announced, the Channel Islands
have been demilitarized. It is now learnt that enemy
landings have been made in Guernsey and Jersey.
Telegraphic and telephonic communications have been cut
and no further information is at present available.

The German battle songs beginning with Engellandied (for
we're off to fight against England) were turned on again
last night after the broadcasting of a special communique
of the German High Command announcing the capture of
the Channel Islands. 

German Propaganda Report

On June 30, the British Island of Guernsey was captured
in a daring coup de main' by detachments of the German
Air Force. In an air fight a German Reconnaissance
aeroplane shot down two Bristol Blenheim bombers. On
July 1, the island of Jersey were occupied by surprise in
the same manner.



-------------
elenos


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 13:45
Originally posted by ChickenShoes

I wouldn't say his military notions were even remarkably astute in the beginning. He was a master politician with an amazing poker face. He was skilled in the art of manipulation, but he did not invent blitzkrieg or any of the tactics used in World War II, he just oversaw them.


Actually he even opposed blitzkrieg in its first real instance (when Guderian crossed the Meuse near Sedan). Guderian was ordered not to exploit the breach and wait for infantry reinforcements to move up and form a salient, on Hitler's direct orders. Guderian managed to get permission from von Kleist to do a reconnaisance in force around Sedan - to a depth of 10km. Guderian simply ignored both Hitler's direct order and the limitations of Kleist's order and proceeded on ... Guderian literally defied the entire German command, including Hitler, and all of German military doctrine - there was no plan to conduct deep battle in France but when command discovered Guderian off madly racing towards Paris with the French helpless to do anything about, it became all part of Hitler's infallible genius and his masterful planning.

What Hitler was really good at doing, was taking credit for the successes of others, while laying the blame for his failures on his staff.


Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 19:39
Any attempt to invade britain by the axis powers would have come unstuck and would have proven a costly mistake.
The axis powers had the brains to know this when it came to the crunch and they shelved the idea.
Thankfully the scenario described never happened and thanks to the russians and the british empire both fronts were held.
A second front was only ever opened because they did not fancy there chances across the channel and they failed to get the required air superiority.
Plus the german surface fleet was pretty poor.


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 20:49
Although the original post was not 'concerned' with how the Germans might have won, a number of subsequent posts have raised issues that indicate that the how is an important issue that would affect the 'aftermath' even given a German 'victory'.  I agree with earlier comments to the effect that, given Germany's historical campaign of 'brutality' and 'extermination', even being more successful militarily would still leave a 'rump' state based in the east and ongoing 'irregular' warfare against partisans in the 'occupied' zone that would tax Germany's resources.  In that sort of scenario the best the Germans could manage would have been to 'stalemate' the west until nuclear weapons were available.  Basically in order to 'win', Germany would have had to force Britain out of the war.  However, to accomplish this Germany needed not only to 'win' militarily in the east, but to be able to 'hold' it with minimal resources of their own.

With their historical campaign against the Soviet Union, Hitler had simply 'bitten off more than he could chew'.  He was trying to accomplish 2 goals in a single campaign, both the military defeat of the Soviet Union and the extermination of a segment of the population in preparation for German 'colonization'.   Now, a key component of a 'successful' campaign would be, IMHO, to separate these 2 actions into distinct 'phases'.  The first phase would involve the military defeat of the Soviet Union, followed by its breakup -  to be 'replaced' by a number of fascist 'puppet' regimes.  Puppet states in the Ukraine, Crimea, Baltic States and Caucasus would likely have been the most successful.  Perhaps less so in the core Russian areas.  A simple approach of 'reopening churches' and 'redistribution' of the collectivized land would have 'won over' much of the rural population. With a successful 'Phase I', Germany would have been free to concentrate on the west.  This would have involved switching their production and R&D efforts to air, naval and WMD's in order to force Britain out of the war.  Germany would have held a huge geographical advantage in this conflict, as Britain would have vulnerable to attack from the nearby French coast, while Germany would have had a defensive 'buffer' of France and the low countries that would have to be penetrated before Germany itself could be hit.  Once the Germans had build large numbers of advanced models of u-boats, fighters and heavy bombers it would have been increasingly difficult for Britain to hold out.    


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 17:54
Originally posted by Ironduke

... http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/failures.htm - And a rather long debate on my own forum, at 1234 replies with many military experts weighing in:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/history-warfare/3123-could-germany-have-won-wwii.html - http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/history-warfare/3123-could-germany-have-won-wwii.html


The thread on your own forum appears to be MIA. ;)


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 20:08
Wehrmacht was defeated by the Red Army, not because of winter.
 
They underestimated the Soviet industry and military power and they paid for it. They thought that Russia was a peasant state and would fold under massive attack, like the Tsarist Russia did in the first world war, or China did against Japanese attack. However the USSR was transformed by Stalin into an industrial power in a very short time.
 
Stalin said in 1933: 'We are 100 years behind the Western powers. Either we close this gap in 10 years, or they will wipe us off the map.' The bastard was right, the Germans came knocking before even 10 years were up.
 
Anyway, Even if the Germans had taken the Caucasus they would have lost, the Russians had already started to sabotage the oilfields in Baku. They had enough oil in the Urals themselves. Even if the Germans had taken Moscow or Leningrad, they had to cross the Volga, and later the Urals. They already had difficulty with logistics, half the way in.
 
As to the original question, what would have happened if the Germans conquered the USSR? We know their plans. They planned to inflict 30 million causalties, and expel the rest of the Russians in European territories to Asia beyond the Urals. Then they would colonise the European Russia with German farmers, in a fashion similar to the US expansion to the West.
 
Soviets foiled this plan, but they lost about 25+ millions anyway.


-------------


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 20:29
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

Wehrmacht was defeated by the Red Army, not because of winter.


Absolutely!  Both sides suffered from the winter - the Soviets less so perhaps because they were better prepared.  However, the Germans being 'overextended' and at the end of a tenuous supply line were also important factors.  On the flip side, because the Germans formed 'hedgehog' defensive positions centered on villages that provided some shelter while the Soviets were forced to operate largely in the 'open', and the Soviets supply lines were forced to run 'cross country' because the Germans were holding key positions on the established lines of communications, the Germans gained some advantages from the winter as well.  Without the Red Army offensive, the Germans would not have suffered anywhere near the losses they did due to winter, once they had called off their own attacks.

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

They underestimated the Soviet industry and military power and they paid for it. They thought that Russia was a peasant state and would fold under massive attack, like the Tsarist Russia did in the first world war, or China did against Japanese attack. However the USSR was transformed by Stalin into an industrial power in a very short time.


Even more, Hitler depended on his own prejudices rather than 'hard' intelligence information.  He believed that Slavs were racially 'inferior' and that 'communism' was an inferior system and therefore the Red Army could not possibly fight effectively.  The Winter War performance of the Red Army, and then its performance during the early stages of the German invasion confirmed him in these prejudgements.  In fact, Stalin's brutal regime was possibly 'vulnerable' to 'collapse', if faced with a war of 'liberation' (reopening of the churchs and redistribution of the collectivized land).  However, the campaign of deliberate brutality and extermination right from the start was to a significant extent 'self-defeating'.  Once Nazi policies had 'forced' the vast majority of the Soviet population to supporting Stalin's regime (in order to resist extermination) and Soviet factories starting cranking out large volumes of advanced weaponry the Germans were in trouble. 



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com