Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
QuoteReplyTopic: If the Nazis conquered the USSR? 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Edited by ChickenShoes - 24-Jun-2007 at 15:21
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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:
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.
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...
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!
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...
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
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.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum