Operation Barbarossa Ever Winnable?

[dbsapp]

This was the rare case when God clearly was on NKVD side. 

Conserning the so-called "Operation Snow" - no matter how flattering the story of Soviet spies engineering US-Japanese war could have been to above mentioned NKVD - it's most likely a myth.

Japan made decision on waging war with America long before famous Hull note. The note itself didn't have the fateful impact it was later claimed it had. Chinese debacle, Japan's rivalry with US for the domination in Pacific and sanctions made the conflict inevitable. 

[Bufo]

42 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Germany never stood a chance. Never. Not at any moment.

I agree. The war was never winnable, and to say that Hitler came within a hairsbreadth of winning the war seems just *stupid* to me.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Bufo

[Artkin]

The Soviets were beginning to have extreme famine issues during Barbarossa and Fall Blau... unlike the Germans...  if I am not mistaken.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Artkin

[Aragorn2002]

18 minutes ago, Artkin said:

The Soviets were beginning to have extreme famine issues during Barbarossa and Fall Blau... unlike the Germans...  if I am not mistaken.

Lend lease solved that problem. And others.

[Probus]

49 minutes ago, Bufo said:

I agree. The war was never winnable, and to say that Hitler came within a hairsbreadth of winning the war seems just *stupid* to me.

I wouldn't go so far as that @Bufo, but we are talking hypotheticals.

I guess if 'Germany could have kept the USA out of the war' would also have to be added to the list of hypotheticals.

[danfrodo]

 

I'll throw my 2 cents in on Eastern Front: 

1.  Paulus and others, in studies of various plans, concluded that the supply chain would basically fall apart long before approaching Moscow, and would require a long pause before the offensive could continue.  And the supply chain did fall apart long before Moscow.

2.  Stalin did just about everything he could to help the Germans win before and during the summer of 1941.  Stalin had mostly exterminated his officer corps.  He put too much of his force too far forward and did not use defense in depth, despite having incredible depth.  He had no plan for how to handle a German mobile offensive.  he continually ordered hasty, ridiculous, piecemeal counterattacks that continually failed, resulting in terrible losses.  He refused to let units retreat, leading to the costliest defeats in the history of the world.  Yet despite all these utterly anti-competent choices, the Germans still didn't win.  So if they couldn't win with all this help, could they really have won?

But maybe if they had gone straight for Moscow, they could've won?  Maybe, I suppose it's best chance they had.  Maybe taking Moscow, which was the communication hub for the country, could've caused some kind of collapse given how hated Stalin was in Ukraine & elsewhere?  Maybe they could've held the loooooong southern flank of the Moscow drive against all those troops in the south? 

As pointed out above, Hitler could've gone for the oil directly, but that would've been even worse logistical mess with even greater enemy forces on the northern flank of the advance than he would've faced going for Moscow.  And that last few hundred kilometers after Rostov was not exactly the autobahn. 

Anyone wargamed this out in Grigsby's game? (I've not played it, I only played it in Operational Art of War which had weak AI and I won)

I played Grigsby's old version, like in the late 80s I think, and lost as germans but won in 1944 as the soviets.   I remember retreating and delaying as best I could at first.  I tried a full defense just west of Smolensk behind river line but it was breached, though bought time and was very costly to germans.  They ran out of steam well before Moscow because I hadn't lost 3.5 million men in the first two months of the war.

Maybe I should get WITE, but it sounds like soooooo much work...

 

[Artkin]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Lend lease solved that problem. And others.

Negative. From what I saw - a graph by Glantz indicated that lend lease helped very very little. 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Artkin

[danfrodo]

From what I've seen, lend lease was very important, but not at first.  In 1941 it was just a trickle and didn't make much difference.  By 1943 it was a flood but I am working from the assumption that the Germans lost in 1941, per Stahel and others.  After that it was only a matter of what the German-Soviet end game would be -- negotiation or war to the death (death of Hitler, that is)

Anyone watch youtube by TIK?  good stuff.  He had stat (a sourced stat, from actual documents) that said soviets built ~130k trucks during the war.  But lend lease sent them ~400k trucks!  Imagine the lack of mobility, the great shortening of the supply line, that would've been w/o all those trucks.  And if the soviets chose to build all those trucks, how many less T34s & guns & shells would they have had?

[Aragorn2002]

34 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Negative. From what I saw - a graph by Glantz indicated that lend lease helped very very little. 

Based on Soviet information probably. Lend Lease was vitally important. It's incredible how much was delivered by Roosevelt to Stalin, without any payment or conditions. Thanks to the traitor Harry Hopkins it even included shipments of uranium 235!

Edited August 7, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[Probus]

8 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Anyone watch youtube by TIK?  good stuff. 

@Artkin linked me or told me of TIK's videos and I started watching his channel. But one of his videos reminded me of my WWII class and that's what prompted me to post this thread. Hah! I'll have to see if I can figure out which one it was. 

50 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Anyone wargamed this out in Grigsby's game?

That's a great idea and yes, it would be lot of work, but fun!

 

I've heard it said that Germany lost the war at Stalingrad. Because that's when Hitler took control of the army from his generals, and conversely, Stalin released control of his army to his generals. 

[Probus]

Ok, I lied. It was actually watching two videos, the first by TIK:

The second was by Military History Visualized:

 

[Artkin]

2 hours ago, danfrodo said:

From what I've seen, lend lease was very important, but not at first.  In 1941 it was just a trickle and didn't make much difference.  By 1943 it was a flood but I am working from the assumption that the Germans lost in 1941, per Stahel and others.  After that it was only a matter of what the German-Soviet end game would be -- negotiation or war to the death (death of Hitler, that is)

Anyone watch youtube by TIK?  good stuff.  He had stat (a sourced stat, from actual documents) that said soviets built ~130k trucks during the war.  But lend lease sent them ~400k trucks!  Imagine the lack of mobility, the great shortening of the supply line, that would've been w/o all those trucks.  And if the soviets chose to build all those trucks, how many less T34s & guns & shells would they have had?

Well we were talking food, and it was actually straight out of a TIK video lol. He has good stuff.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Without those lend lease trucks, it would have taken the soviets a lot longer to get to Berlin.

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Without those lend lease trucks, it would have taken the soviets a lot longer to get to Berlin.

Indeed. In the meantime the Western Allies could have reached Berlin, Budapest and Vienna and keep Stalin's thugs out of Europe. But that was never Roosevelt's plan unfortunately. He was convinced Stalin was a democrat at heart.

Another fact about Lend Lease is that the Soviets traded some deliveries with the Japanese in exchange for raw materials and such. With such friends you don't need enemies.

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[danfrodo]

4 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Based on Soviet information probably. Lend Lease was vitally important. It's incredible how much was delivered by Roosevelt to Stalin, without any payment or conditions. Thanks to the traitor Harry Hopkins it even included shipments of uranium 235!

Totally agree with you, my friend Aragorn.  But note my caveat -- I am only looking at 1941, since my premise is that war was lost in that first year, before lend lease had major effect.  I agree lend lease was incredibly important overall.

[chuckdyke]

9 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

It's a lot more complicated than that.

Basically, I agree. The 20th century the century Europe imploded. World War 1 and 2 was the same conflict as World War 1 ended in an armistice which was not sustainable. The 2 superpowers England and France ended up as second rate in regards world politics and Germany in ruins at the end. Now we witness the end of the American century anyway it is up to them to sort out their domestic issues. We witness everyday their version of Punch and Judy or Jan Klaasen en Katrijn in Dutch.  I better don't discuss politics on this site. 

[Aragorn2002]

7 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Basically, I agree. The 20th century the century Europe imploded. World War 1 and 2 was the same conflict as World War 1 ended in an armistice which was not sustainable. The 2 superpowers England and France ended up as second rate in regards world politics and Germany in ruins at the end. Now we witness the end of the American century anyway it is up to them to sort out their domestic issues. We witness everyday their version of Punch and Judy or Jan Klaasen en Katrijn in Dutch.  I better don't discuss politics on this site. 

And neither should I. But being married to a splendid and free minded Afghan lady in a time when we see city after city fall in a terrified country returning to the darkest middle ages I can't help thinking how little has been learned from two world wars. 

I apologize for derailing this thread, chuckdyke. My emotions got the better of me, as usual. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[Aragorn2002]

9 hours ago, danfrodo said:

Totally agree with you, my friend Aragorn.  But note my caveat -- I am only looking at 1941, since my premise is that war was lost in that first year, before lend lease had major effect.  

I understand, Dan. And you're right as usual. But it's hard to imagine a German victory in the east, even in 1941. Reaching Moscow would only have resulted in a super Stalingrad and a pyrrhic victory at best. Stalin had calculated the loss of his capitol and would through terror and mass executions have prevented the collapse of his regime. What most people underestimate is how well Stalin prepared his country for war. Killing many talented officiers may have weakened the Red army, but tightened his grip on his armed forces. Most Wlassows already lay in their graves when Barbarossa began.  And only Russia could have beaten Russia.

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[chuckdyke]

The German economy was coal-based, and oil was no problem for the Soviets and the western allies. After El Alamein and Case Blue in the Caucasus it was time to negotiate their way out. People always quote the fuel consumption of the German cats. Could they provide the logistics for 40000 panzer IV's? Don't let us mention the half a million rolling stock required. Clever tactics is invalid if you can't achieve the strategic objectives. Good thing we have a tactical game. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by chuckdyke
spelling

[Sgt Joch]

Operation Barbarossa did pretty much as well as it could, starting a few weeks earlier or capturing Moscow would not have made a difference in the long run. The Op was based on the belief that the Communist regime would implode. That was not the case in hindsight, but at the time it seemed a reasonable assumption based on opinion of Russian emigres, the purges in the Russian army and Russian performance in the Finnish war. US and UK in 41 also expected Russia to collapse.

Once it was obvious Russia was fighting on, the Germans had to face the fact that the logistic challenges made it impossible to conquer all of Russia. Based on pre-Op planning, the Germans estimated that the maximum that they could supply their troops was 500 km from the bases and that is where the initial offensive petered out in July. After that, they had to move bases forward to support additional offensives. Problem was the railroad network was inadequate, not just the type, but the number. The Germans needed at least one dedicated rail line per army, they fielded around 10 armies, but they could only count on really one rail line per Army Group, so troops on the front line were always short of everything. Best example is winter clothing. The Germans had all the winter clothing they needed for the entire armies in the east in storage in Germany and Poland, problem was the entire rail capacity in Russia was taken up by fuel, ammo and food so they were unable to transport winter clothing to the front line troops.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Sgt Joch

[danfrodo]

Great points, everyone.  especially Sgt Jock's point that everyone thought Germany would win easily, which I've seen sited multiple places.  Logistics rule, always.

[Aragorn2002]

15 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Great points, everyone.  especially Sgt Jock's point that everyone thought Germany would win easily, which I've seen sited multiple places.  Logistics rule, always.

Logistics and industrial capacity. Which is basically the same thing. 

[Probus]

I wonder if Stalin would have accepted a conditional surrender/cease Fire that left him in power from the Urals and to the East.  Did/does the Soviet Union have oil to the East of the Urals?

[Erwin]

7 minutes ago, Probus said:

I wonder if Stalin would have accepted a conditional surrender/cease Fire that left him in power from the Urals and to the East.  Did/does the Soviet Union have oil to the East of the Urals?

Unlikely as it would take away his own legitimacy and power thru the USSR and almost certainly lead to his violent ouster.  Stalin was an ultimate survivor no matter what the cost (to others).  

[Freyberg]

Everyone is an expert after the fact, but by Winter 1941 the Nazis controlled much of the population, most of the agricultural area and a large part of the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union, plus they had destroyed the bulk of its armed forces.

The extra six weeks that were denied them by Mr Churchill's 'foolish' invasion of Greece would have been six weeks of good weather and dry roads. Had they taken Moscow and Leningrad, which seems conceivable with 25% more time, they would have crippled the Soviets' industrial capacity and would have controlled most of its population. They might then easily have driven the forces on the northern plain east of Moscow back to the Urals, an easily defensible barrier against a much weakened opponent, allowing reallocation of troops.

Operation Blue would then have taken place on very different terms.

It's easy to say one outcome is 'stupid' or 'impossible' because it didn't happen, but even as it was, it took numerous mistakes by the Germans, excellent generalship by Mr Zhukov, and incredible stoic resistance from the Soviets to prevent Hitler achieving his objectives.

Leaving aside the fact that Hitler almost won the war in 1940, freedom hung in the balance in 1941 too, for real. Even in 1942, Soviet victory was far from guaranteed, and was only achieved by Zhukov's masterful husbanding of his resources.

The outcome of war is not predetermined by economics or logistics - if it were, we would probably all be speaking Sumerian or Akkadian...