Operation Barbarossa Ever Winnable?

[Aragorn2002]

32 minutes ago, Probus said:

I think we may have an East meets West history problem here. I've read some German accounts of the Eastern Front. Does anyone know of a translated book from the Soviet soldier's perspective?

I don't see much difference between a holocaust denier, and someone who denies the holodomor and Stalin's other crimes, do you, Probus?

Wart? Freyberg? Sid? Dbsapp? Erwin? Anyone?

[Erwin]

Just read the book for heavens sake.  All else here is dribble.

[Aragorn2002]

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Just read the book for heavens sake.  All else here is dribble.

Already did. Several times. It's not exactly a new book, you know.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[DMS]

1 hour ago, Holman said:

"Timothy David Snyder (born August 18, 1969) is an American author and historian specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe and the Holocaust. He is the Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale University and a Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna.^[2] He has written several books, including the best-sellers Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin and On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.^[3]"

And still "Bloodlands" is not a scientific work, it is popular work. Book for a mass reader. Without new facts, but with "interesting narative". 

Author is very loose to definitions. He calls Soviet peasants slaves. Writes that "kulaks" had to be "annihilated" like they had to be killed, not like they had to become ordinary farmers. He doesn't explain who was kulaks. Reader has an impression that kulak is just a peasant, not a local capitalist with opressed hired workers and a gang of thugs, who beat out debts. He says nothing about confrontation between poor peasants and kulaks. There was a long history of violence since 1920s, kulaks and poor farmers assaulted, killed each other. He tells that kulaks had to be destroyed as a class, then tells about famine. Like famine was planned by authorities to destroy kulaks. Is it academical work? It is not even a good textbook for students. If he is competent, why does he write this? To tell simple emotional story for mass reader? 

But okay. If this work correctly describes reality, why Ukrainians, cossacks didn't start a rebellion after German invasion? Why did they fight for Red army in mass? They were genocided, but heroically fought for those who killed them few years before, it is illogical. I can post a list of cossack cavalry divisions, formed in southern regions, if you want.

Edited August 14, 2021 by DMS

[Warts 'n' all]

10 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

the local librarian in a town full of illiterates

A library is only as good as it's manager.

As for the pearl-handled plonker, I'm not sure what he is doing in this thread.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Warts 'n' all

[Probus]

1 hour ago, DMS said:

And still "Bloodlands" is not a scientific work, it is popular work. Book for a mass reader. Without new facts, but with "interesting narative". 

I understand where you are coming from, and your frustration, but I would like to read (or listen) to a historian with the views you are mentioned. Can you give me some examples?  The professor who taught the class I attended in the late 80s was of a totally different opinion. 

[chuckdyke]

The threat is was Barbarossa winnable. No, it was not the timetable was Christmas 1941 beyond that the logistics were not available. The joker was Japan. They asked for support against the US and Hitler obliged with the formality of declaring war to the US. But Japan stayed out of the war of Germany with the Soviet Union. Result the counterattack of Zhukov with his Siberian units near Moscow. It was game over after that Blitzkrieg grounded down to a war of attrition. If you like history listen to the people who were there that is where historians get their information from. Now we must listen to all sides not only your local university which get increasingly infiltrated by politicians with their own agendas. 

[dbsapp]

13 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

The threat is was Barbarossa winnable. No, it was not the timetable was Christmas 1941 beyond that the logistics were not available. The joker was Japan. They asked for support against the US and Hitler obliged with the formality of declaring war to the US. But Japan stayed out of the war of Germany with the Soviet Union. Result the counterattack of Zhukov with his Siberian units near Moscow. It was game over after that Blitzkrieg grounded down to a war of attrition. If you like history listen to the people who were there that is where historians get their information from. Now we must listen to all sides not only your local university which get increasingly infiltrated by politicians with their own agendas. 

The hilarious thing was that initially Germans hoped that Japan WOULDN'T invade USSR and engage US unstead. Reich planners thought it would distract America from interfering in European war. Few month later everything changed and Ribbentrop begun to press Japanese for help, but they already had their own war to fight.

The loose cooperation between Germany and Japan was one of the major factors of their defeat. Japan didn't give a notice to its ally on the preparations to Pearl harbor, and Germans gave Tokyo only a vague hint about Barbarossa.

[Probus]

1 hour ago, dbsapp said:

The hilarious thing was that initially Germans hoped that Japan WOULDN'T invade USSR and engage US unstead. Reich planners thought it would distract America from interfering in European war. Few month later everything changed and Ribbentrop begun to press Japanese for help, but they already had their own war to fight.

So below is an alternate timeline with Japan declaring war on Germany, France and Italy in August 1941 and invading Vishy French territory in Asia making Japan a de facto ally of the Soviets and the British.  This alternate timeline starts about 4:45 into the video:

This will stop the Lend-Lease to the Soviets and British.

The scenario is most unlikely but an interesting timeline.

[Freyberg]

9 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

...Wart? Freyberg? Sid? Dbsapp? Erwin? Anyone?

Your assumptions are both churlish and groundless.

And why don't you start your own thread and get that locked down, instead of doing to thread where other people are having an interesting discussion.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Freyberg

[DMS]

7 hours ago, Probus said:

I understand where you are coming from, and your frustration, but I would like to read (or listen) to a historian with the views you are mentioned. Can you give me some examples?  The professor who taught the class I attended in the late 80s was of a totally different opinion. 

Well, yes. May be I am too serious as I live here. But really, how can you write a book about 1930s and don't give a definition of kulak? If I hadn't known, I would think that "kulak" is humilating nickname of a peasant. Of an Ukrainian peasant, in the context. How can you understand internal conflicts in Soviet Union without understanding sides of this conflict. 

Russian book market is dead, I can't give a link to good book about famine of 1930s unfortunately. Yes, I am criticizing world bestseller and can't give better source...

Edited August 15, 2021 by DMS

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, Freyberg said:

Your assumptions are both churlish and groundless.

And why don't you start your own thread and get that locked down, instead of doing to thread where other people are having an interesting discussion.

Pm sent.

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, DMS said:

Well, yes. May be I am too serious as I live here. But really, how can you write a book about 1930s and don't give a definition of kulak? If I hadn't known, I would think that "kulak" is humilating nickname of a peasant. Of an Ukrainian peasant, in the context. How can you understand internal conflicts in Soviet Union without understanding sides of this conflict. 

Russian book market is dead, I can't give a link to good book about famine of 1930s unfortunately. Yes, I am criticizing world bestseller and can't give better source...

Pm sent.

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

15 hours ago, Erwin said:

After so many million Ukrainians were killed by Stalin in the 20's and 30's it seems quite believable that the Germans were welcomed as liberators.  Look at how the Ukrainians still feel about Russia today. 

I again suggest folks read "Bloodlands" for detailed and very readable but well-research academic book on the period.  

Until they started starving to death as the Wehrmacht took all the food supplies for the troops as was the plan all along, they were expecting tens of millions to starve as a result. 

People, and not necessarily anyone here, always mention the oil, but the lack of food doesn’t seem to get much attention. 

MMM

[chuckdyke]

19 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

but the lack of food doesn’t seem to get much attention. 

The difference between a war movie (even the good ones) and RL. Actors look too healthy; I never see a fat German soldier on the newsreels. Supply was the German Achilles' Heel during WW2 and food was the end in Stalingrad. Even in the Far East in peace time. You don't last long if you go native for too long. Even then what you eat is the equivalent of their Christmas dinner. You are correct in regards of food. Oil lubricates modern economies; it was said Israel has the Old Testament and the Arabs have the oil. Men can't live of bread alone. 

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

The difference between a war movie (even the good ones) and RL. Actors look too healthy; I never see a fat German soldier on the newsreels. Supply was the German Achilles' Heel during WW2 and food was the end in Stalingrad. Even in the Far East in peace time. You don't last long if you go native for too long. Even then what you eat is the equivalent of their Christmas dinner. You are correct in regards of food. Oil lubricates modern economies; it was said Israel has the Old Testament and the Arabs have the oil. Men can't live of bread alone. 

That's why they should refuse fat people in re-enactment groups. It looks ridiculous.

I'm convinced Stalin had his own version of Barbarossa in mind, but then in the other direction. I often wonder what would have happened when the Red army had attacked in the summer of 1940 for example, while the Germans were busy with their Blitzkrieg in the west. Hitler took quite a gamble, which was of course typical for him. He was a reckless poker player, while Stalin was a cautious chess player.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[Probus]

7 hours ago, DMS said:

But really, how can you write a book about 1930s and don't give a definition of kulak?

He did give a definition of the "Kulak". You must have missed it. It was "Fist" because they had to be beaten back with your fists. It was in the Preface. I had never heard the term before. 

[Aragorn2002]

41 minutes ago, Probus said:

He did give a definition of the "Kulak". You must have missed it. It was "Fist" because they had to be beaten back with your fists. It was in the Preface. I had never heard the term before. 

What difference does it make how they were called by the communist propaganda machine? They were poor, hard working farmers, who hardly had a piece of land and if they were lucky, a cow or a pig. And they were starved and tormented to death by the millions, in many cases driven to cannibalism.

Between 4 to 8 million of them, men, women, children, perished in the most horrible way and we are discussing how Stalin chose to brand them.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[dbsapp]

Found some interesting thoughts on Yugoslavia\ Greece and Barbarossa:

Firstly, as a teaser, it is worth pointing out that Hitler himself did quite explicitly blame Mussolini's failures in Africa and the Balkans for undermining his invasion of the USSR, in his famous recorded conversation with Marshal Mannerheim of Finland in May 1942. He made mention of the permanent loss of three key divisions (to Africa), and the disruption and diversion of his airforce and panzer forces, which the Balkan and Mediterranean operations entailed, while they should have been preparing for 'Barbarossa'. He doesn't explicitly say, however, that there was a consequent delay in launching 'Barbarossa', only that he had expected the operation to begin in the spring of 1941, and that the Balkan distraction had been "very unfortunate".

Hitler also took great pains to point out to Mannerheim the fact that the German war machine was a "good weather" force, and that this had caused him to delay his campaign in the West over the winter of 1939-40, despite his desperate desire to move quickly on that front. He also spoke of the difficulties caused by excessive rain for his mobile striking forces, and also their acknowledged unpreparedness for winter combat.

So while we can see from his own words that Hitler was very good at finding excuses for the German failure to conclude the war in the USSR in 1941, your question was, what do historians think?

Historian Martin van Creveld wrote a book on this exact subject back in 1973, 'Hitler's Strategy 1940-1941: The Balkan Clue', which I believe was quite influential in establishing the claim among historians that there was no significant delay to the start of 'Barbarossa' as a consequence of the Balkan Campaigns. In researching this book van Creveld meticulously followed the preparation and positioning of the German military forces in the lead-up to the invasion of the USSR, and found that the scheduling of the re-equipping and training of forces would not have allowed them to be ready for the offensive much earlier than the historical starting point, regardless of the Balkan Campaigns. He shows that units redeploying from the Balkan Campaigns were in fact in position and ready for a start to operations even before the original 16th May 1941 deadline. Many of the forces used in the Balkans were earmarked for reserve, and so were not even required to be in position until very late in the process, and the transportation timetables were very flexible, and had been designed to operate in synchronicity with the Balkan operations.

The real cause of delay, according to van Creveld, was the result of shortages of equipment for key divisions, especially motorized and panzer forces which were to be re-equipped with captured French equipment. Some of these units were still moving forward in late May and early June 1941, and some were moved forward before their equipment had even arrived, with the hope that their equipment would be scrounged from various locations and meet them at their destination. He concludes that this problem alone would have prevented a start to operations in the East before late June 1941, and it had nothing to do with the Balkan Campaign or the weather.

However, the story does not end there...

On 17th March 1941, as British forces were disembarking in Greece in response to German moves into Bulgaria, Hitler made the decision to change the objective of Operation 'Marita', from a limited occupation of northern Greece, into a complete occupation of Greece to expel British forces from the continent. This had the effect of significantly extending the scope of the operation, requiring the use of larger numbers of German forces, for a longer period of time. This threw the synchronization between Operations 'Marita' and 'Barbarossa' into chaos. Forces of 12th Army, required for duty in Greece, which had been earmarked for operations with Army Group South in 'Barbarossa', would simply not be available for the beginning of 'Barbarossa'. This did not cause a delay in the starting date of 'Barbarossa', but it did cause a significant alteration to the operational plan for 'Barbarossa'.

The existing plan for Operation 'Barbarossa', called for Army Group South to attack into the USSR along two major axes; from Rumania, with 1st Panzergruppe, and 12th Army in support; forming an encircling pincer with an attack from 6th Army and 17th Army from Poland. The loss of supporting divisions from 12th Army due to the expanding scope of the Greek operation, led Hitler to doubt the ability of the southern pincer from Rumania to safely cross the Pruth River, and as a consequence he cancelled the attack from Rumania, and directed that 1st Panzergruppe would support the northern attack from Poland instead, creating a single-axis attack for Army Group South, without the ability to create large pincer encirclements.

This had significant ramifications for the Germans. In the historical event, the single-axis attack from Army Group South from Poland was hindered and delayed by terrain and stubborn Soviet resistance, which resulted in Army Group South lagging behind as the German Army advanced into the USSR, and exposed the right flank of Army Group Centre. It was this exposed southern flank which so worried Hitler that he diverted Guderian's 2nd Panzergruppe to Kiev from Army Group Centre during the critical month of September, when German forces should have been resting, resupplying, and building up their logistics for the next stage of the campaign. We can only speculate how things might have been different if 1st Panzergruppe had been sent racing across the southern steppes of the Ukraine, instead of winding through the Carpathian valleys, perhaps encircling Kiev from the south and finding itself, rested, replenished and poised in perfect position to continue the advance to Moscow or Rostov at the beginning of September, along with a similarly refreshed Army Group Centre.

So while there was no overall delay to the start of Operation 'Barbarossa' due to the Balkan Campaign, there were potentially far-reaching ramifications due to the diversion of key units from the planned attack. Given the effect this had, we can also perhaps revisit Hitler's criticism of Mussolini to Mannerheim in 1942, and see it as perhaps not as entirely self-serving as might have been assumed.

 

[Artkin]

Thanks for that post @dbsapp, I really enjoyed reading it. Super informative!

[Vanir Ausf B]

19 hours ago, Probus said:

I think we may have an East meets West history problem here. I've read some German accounts of the Eastern Front. Does anyone know of a translated book from the Soviet soldier's perspective?

https://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Destroyer-Memoirs-Army-Commander/dp/1844159515

[DMS]

2 hours ago, Probus said:

He did give a definition of the "Kulak". You must have missed it. It was "Fist" because they had to be beaten back with your fists. It was in the Preface. I had never heard the term before. 

In this book? I can't find. Used a text search, no such words in the preface. May be in other books?

So, they were "kulaks" because they had to be beaten by fists? Ah, I don't know what to say. We are living in world of post-truth. Local semi-criminal boss was a poor victim, who was beaten by his peasants. )

[DMS]

2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

What difference does it make how they were called by the communist propaganda machine?

Word "kulak" appeared long before communists. First known usage - 17th century. It is in 19th century vocabularies, sense was very negative. "Kulak" is people's word, not communist propaganda invention.

There is Russian article, google translation must be readable:

Кулак (крестьянин) — Википедия (wikipedia.org)

Edited August 15, 2021 by DMS

[Probus]

4 hours ago, DMS said:

In this book? I can't find. Used a text search, no such words in the preface. May be in other books?

So, they were "kulaks" because they had to be beaten by fists? Ah, I don't know what to say. We are living in world of post-truth. Local semi-criminal boss was a poor victim, who was beaten by his peasants. )

I will PM you @DMS since this subject kinda diverges from the Barbarossa topic, but the link you sent to the Russian wikipedia article has a period drawing of a 'Kulak' being punched by a giant fist:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кулак_(крестьянин)

[Aragorn2002]

On 8/15/2021 at 7:44 AM, Freyberg said:

Your assumptions are both churlish and groundless.

And why don't you start your own thread and get that locked down, instead of doing to thread where other people are having an interesting discussion.

Since you don't react on my pm, I will answer you here.

No, my 'assumption' isn't groundless. There's a strong and in many respects  justified tendency to condemn everything that has to do with the Germans during ww2. This even goes so far as to justify the terror bombing of cities like Dresden or Berlin. "They deserved it".  Well, yes and no, but okay, we can all understand where that comes from. I think we can all agree that Germany has been punished enough and has learned it´s lessons, being one of the most exemplary and just democracies in the world today.

But when it comes to condemning the Soviet/Russian past of terror, war mongering and mass murder you lot remain silent. Even now a forum member simply denies Stalin's guilt in the Holodomor and practically denies/justifies the whole massacre (the famine in the Ukraine in 1930-1933 that cost the lifes of millions of people) and many other Soviet crimes no doubt, I don't see ANY indignation or anger on your part.

Hence my assumption, you see?

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by Aragorn2002