Jump to content

How Germany could of defeated the S.U. during Barbarossa?


Recommended Posts

Latley I have been reading some books on the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Now, I have heard and read many times that Germany lost because of their overconfidence and failure to mobilize the entire population for the war effort. Despite this, I am wondering if anyone thinks the Germans still could of won, without having to commit to total war.

The Germans drafted a number of plans before Hitler eventually adopted his bizzarre three pronged north, center, south plan. The first was that the primary objectives be Kiev and Moscow, with only minor flank protection. Does anyone think this may have been more successful?

The next plan decided a weighted blow would be delivered in Leningrad, with Moscow being a secondary objective. I don't think this had much merit. What is in Leningrad?

I think the Germans could have maybe won in one of two ways. The first would be to drive for Moscow, be in the central position, and then systematicaly destroy Russian forces in the Northern or Southern sectors one at a time, negating Russia's numerical strength. However, Moscow could also have been dangerous, as it may have degenerated into a siege war like Stalingrad, and spelled early defeat for the Germans.

The other way that the Germans maybe could have won would be to drive for the Caucasus early, and ruin the Soviet War effort by achieving these economic objectives, like oil, etc. Despite this, I do not think this would have worked, even if the Germans had rapidly conquered the Caucasus, as I am an attrtionist and believe that the physical destruction of the Soviet army was necessary. Thus, I think the Moscow, central position plan, would have been a better option.

Anyway, I guess I am wondering if anyone thinks that the Germans could have defeated the Soviet Union without resorting to total war. Perhaps an earlier invasion? A more firm plan to destroy the Soviet army? Many hypothetical scenarios.

Looking forward to the replies! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The book _Stalin's Folly_ gives some nice thoughts from the Russian side. It raises again the idea that had not Germany attacked, then Stalin would have next year. His goal was a weakened Bolshevised Europe, not a strong Facist one.

While the scale of the war defies my ability to imagine, perhaps the Leningrad idea would have worked. A short war, followed by a political settlement, would have preserved the German Army from Winter and not exhausted its allies. It would have gutted the Red Army, yet not given the Russians the chance to work things out. The Germans could have re-equiped to handle KV's and T-34's better. They might have captured the Leningrad tank works almost intact and been manufacturing KV's of their own until more Prussian models were available.

The short war, though, would have been followed by a longer war while Stalin was either purging his generals or being purged by them. The question was whether there was a Jason C in the wings, more pragmatic if less loyal, waiting to take on the Reform.

A further question. Has anyone seen a study on the effects of Stalin attacking first? Would the results have been the same, or would the Russians had been able to carry it out with some success?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

Anyway, I guess I am wondering if anyone thinks that the Germans could have defeated the Soviet Union without resorting to total war. Perhaps an earlier invasion? A more firm plan to destroy the Soviet army? Many hypothetical scenarios.

it would have been very hard if not impossible. Germans simply underestimated the size of Soviet military. their intelligence about Soviet forces located further back was weak or it did not exist at all.

i think the German plan was quite sound, in that it aimed at the destruction of the Red Army itself instead of focusing on ideological targets. Germans just didn't have what it took. e.g. in Leningrad area Germans destroyed the 2nd Shock Army twice in a six months period, only to see it rebuilt once again. if they had focused more on ideological targets it would have only made the war more difficult for them, in my opinion. taking Moscow would have hindered (at least temporarily) Soviet communications & transportation, but not much else i fear.

regarding Leningrad, it was the 2nd most important city in USSR. i believe it produced 10% of all Soviet wartime materials, even when under siege. it also had immense ideological value, being the birth place of the Revolution and the intellectual capital of Russia, if you are after such targets.

if there is a one element that could be changed to profit the Germans i would change the weather. invasion could start earlier and continue a bit longer. more effective logistics (use of railroads especially) would make a difference as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuirassier - short answer, no, if they don't mobilize for real war they lose. They weren't going to do better than they did. The 1941 performance was outstanding in every military sense, with the Russian moves initially dismal and barely passable later on. The cards were stacked as neatly as you please.

But the proviso, "without fully mobilizing", is deliberately non-sensical. Why impose such a lame restriction? Why look at every variation in the deployment of panzer armies but no variations in the tank production schedules? What magical barrier is supposed to prevent full mobilization, the day the decision is made to attack a state as powerful as Russia?

If the Germans go in fully mobilized, a Speer running manpower allocation and tank and fighter production on the homefront (rationally), the army getting highest priority for resources, prepared for long war not one season, planning on halt lines and upgrades to logistic links at the latest by the onset of winter, with the army expanding in size as mobilization and low losses allow - if they just ran their tank factories around the clock with multiple shifts of workers instead of 10 hours a day (fact!) - then the Russians would have lost. They were in deep trouble as it was. They would not have won a war of attrition against an equal industrial power, losing five to one on the battlefield.

By the time of the mud, the Germans would have made as many new AFVs as they produced in 1942. They might have needed to pause to get them to the front, over logistics links still in need of upgrading, but so what? By the time of the battle of Moscow, the Germans would have been stronger than they were on the day of the invasion, not weaker. Why should they weaken taking only a tenth the losses they are inflicting, when the Russians maintain their strength in the field? If logistics and Russian reserves and weather still force a pullback, fine, pull back and defend for a season, with a lot more to do it with.

When 1942 rolls around, the Germans are going to be the ones with armor superiority, 2 to 1. Visualize an entire tank army, fresh, waiting behind the southern wing in the late fall. While another is drawing off any accumulation of reserves by tearing into the Don front around the level of Voronezh. With full strength infantry armies on either side of it. And replacements for all the losses in the Stalingrad fighting (they certainly existed - somebody held the front 2 years later).

How are the Russians supposed to beat any of that? By losing five to one? By Mars style attacks met by fresh armor reserves? When they try to stop a Voronezh thrust in 1942, are they going to have Kursk level 2:1 manpower and tank odds? How, when the German armor fielded to date has doubled compared to the historical situation, and the Russians haven't had a year's worth of T-34 production?

Since this was clearly possible and at least as obvious as sending armor spearhead A to location X instead of Y, why on earth restrict the question to ignore it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No without mobilization, and no, respectively. In 1941, the government evacuation was already well planned and a functioning administration ready hundreds of miles further east. Would have made no difference, there are no magic mcguffins in national capitals that make countries roll over and die.

As for the choice of front, the south was a much better target. The division of the German armor after the breakthrough there was an unforced error, caused by overconfidence - they thought (again) that the Russians were collapsing completely and they could collect everything with scratch forces, post Jena pursuit style.

The bulk of AG south's armor belonged with the northern prong (meaning axis Stalingrad, not Caucasus), not pushing for oil mirages (that would be sabotaged and could not be transported, anyway. Not for a year). But otherwise the south was the right move in 1942. Moscow was much stronger, the terrain much less favorable, and conditions for beating sizable Russian forces in every way worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a relative expert but not enough to say whether or not Germany could have won the ground war.

An interesting book I just read is here

Stalin's Folly

Some times the author makes errors that even I can catch but it is an interesting study of the first 10 days on the Eastern front.

I would say that the key element of victory for the Germans would have been if Stalin's government had collapsed, or if there was a serious revolt to his authority.

This book assumes that Russia was moving to attack Germany and that explains their (odd) dispositions, but I wouldn't necessarily regard that as fact (no "smoking gun").

The (sad) ironic fact is that Stalin's purges of his military ranks, while they weakened his combat power, also decreased the chance of revolt in the ranks.

Hitler compounded his woes with his insane policy of extermination against people who would be his allies, which is pretty much all of the non-Russian people in teh USSR. By the time they started raising a Ukranian army it was too late.

I think that the victory could have been in the cards if the purges weren't so terrorizing of their officers and if more informed policies had been in place with regards to the occupied territories (i.e. they would have explicitly called for revolution with exiles and offered some sort of counter-weight to the USSR).

None of this happened, and Hitler's insane policies only added to the legitimacy of the USSR goverment's response.

But the political side could potentially have gone the other way if some cards had fallen differently, and Hitler wouldn't have so badly misplayed his hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Carl P.'s mention of more informed policies. One school of thought is that if Hitler went east as a 'liberator' bringing the old White Russian faction along with him, instead of as a conquerer planning to use the Slavic races as a cheap labor pool, he would've faced much less steadfast opposition. And if his goals were a bit less ambition, to set up a line of buffer states between Germany and the Soviets, that would've been a more manageable scheme too. Actually, I'm not at all sure what Hitler's ultimate goal in Russia was! Did he have visions of PzIIIs making it into Mongolia?

But, Hitler giving his invason a 'positive spin' might not have helped either. Recent history shows that if you invade a country claimimg to come as their liberator there's no guarantee the inhabitants being invaded are going to buy your story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has always been my belief that if Germany had captured Moscow during the initial surge it would've only prolonged the outcome of the war. Russia was just too vast and populated of an area.

But, it has also been my belief that if the railway station Gorky had been captured, then Germany might have had some success. Blah, who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit offtopic..well alot

what if the defense industry went with the notion of the StuG/Pz IV being the stable of the armour and designs for the PzKw VI and V were left on the boards.

So the resources weren't wasted on the Tigers, Panthers and their SPG versions.

thinking of the StuG III ausf. G which was cheaper and quicker to produce and with it's 7.5cm Kwk and 8cm of armour was still up to date with what the allies could field.

how would they have fielded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some German generals considered the war lost as early as 41, when the Soviets were able to replace armies wholesale and put them infront of the German army groups.

Alot of people think that Hitler made a mistake with the Kiev encirclement. The reasoning behind this is that it cost Germany Moscow. This is to suggest that capturing Moscow would cause the Soviet Union to collapse like a deck of cards. Actually, it was sound strategic reasoning that lead to this encirclement and Guderian helping AGS out. Had AGC pushed directly to Moscow, they would have left themselves in a very weak position with an exposed flank. AGS would have been tied up much longer. Overall the net territorial gain would have been less. Ah, but what was the industial worth of Moscow? Well, argueably, having the whole of the Ukraine in German hands was more detrimental to Soviet efforts than the fall of Moscow.

Had AGC pushed directly to Moscow and taken it, they would have been in a precarious position come the winter offensives, which may have had disastrous consequences.

The idea that Moscow was the key to conquering the SU is really little more than a light at the end of a tunnel for the Germans. Would it have been a blow? Sure, but look at the determination with which the Soviets defended. The loss of a single city, even one as important as Moscow would not have caused them to fold.

Happy Newyear btw!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would personally say that the people who are saying that taking Russian industry over and out-producing them are a bit naive, really.

Do you not remember the "Scorched Earth" tactics used by the Russians?

I have no doubt that they'd be used against the Germans anywhere, even in Moscow.

I also think that Hitler's faith in German weaponry, especially the large stuff, would have caused him to make Tiger tanks inside of the USSR instead of T-34/85s or whatever.

On the other hand - what would have happened had he have been producing V2 rockets in the USSR and using them to annihilate Soviet strongpoints, rather than using the Luftwaffe?

I think he may well have had a lot more success that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They couldnt have done it ,,,

The german economy was not ready for war,

The german military was not equiped for the weather or terrain,,,

The german NAVY was left out of the loop entirely ,,, ( and was not equiped for the war anyway)

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I'll explain that navy reference ,,,

Germany needed 2 aircraft carriers in the black sea, and 2 carriers in the gulf of helsinki, both supported by fleets, plust a fleet with carriers in the baltic ,, and a fleet with carriers in the north sea ,,

and another in the mediteranian, , thats 5 fleets ,, each with 2 carriers ,, 10 carriers ,, each with its supporting cruisers, destroyers etc ,,,, , and thats just for war with the soviets ,,, lets not forget england,, thats another fleet in the red sea to block the suez ,, another fleet in the caribean, another off south africa , another off the st laurence basin, and one more for each of the east end of the english channel, the west end ,, the irish sea, the west coast of ireland , the scotish coast, and gibralter, 10 more fleets ,,

each with its pair of carriers, ,, germany had exactly, 1,(ONE) carrier,,

and of course the german racial/religious policy cost them the russian people ,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A Germany rational enough to play nice wouldn't have invaded in the first place. Moot point."

Uh, I don't get it. The whole point of recent scholarship on the USSR post archives being opened is that, in fact, the Soviet Union was preparing to invade German occupied territories in Eastern Europe. Thus, it was only a matter of whether Hitler would invade Stalin or if Stalin would invade Hitler.

Given that the 2 dictators were going to come to blows regardless, the issues become as to how one can proceed most efficiently to destroy the enemy. I can't answer on the various tank production and logistic models but from a political perspective Hitler did not help his cause due to his insane policies vis a vis the occupied territories.

The entire key thought is that Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union wasn't some big mistake, in fact it was the best option available to him given that plan B was to take an assault from the Russians in some near term (based on recent scholarship).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Carl's post, and I would like to see some author names and titles put to that 'recent scholarship'.

As for his conclusion - no it was not his best option, unless the other option ends with something worse than him shooting himself in a bunker in Berlin, the division of the country, the destruction of his political regime, the occupation of Germany by foreign powers and the permanent loss of all German territory east of the Oder.

All the best

Andreas

[ January 02, 2006, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Corvidae:

They couldnt have done it ,,,

The german economy was not ready for war,

The german military was not equiped for the weather or terrain,,,

The german NAVY was left out of the loop entirely ,,, ( and was not equiped for the war anyway)

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I'll explain that navy reference ,,,

Germany needed 2 aircraft carriers in the black sea, and 2 carriers in the gulf of helsinki, both supported by fleets, plust a fleet with carriers in the baltic ,, and a fleet with carriers in the north sea ,,

and another in the mediteranian, , thats 5 fleets ,, each with 2 carriers ,, 10 carriers ,, each with its supporting cruisers, destroyers etc ,,,, , and thats just for war with the soviets ,,, lets not forget england,, thats another fleet in the red sea to block the suez ,, another fleet in the caribean, another off south africa , another off the st laurence basin, and one more for each of the east end of the english channel, the west end ,, the irish sea, the west coast of ireland , the scotish coast, and gibralter, 10 more fleets ,,

each with its pair of carriers, ,, germany had exactly, 1,(ONE) carrier,,

and of course the german racial/religious policy cost them the russian people ,,,

Germany had no carrier throughout the war. They would not have been able to get any carrier into the Black Sea, and they did not need any in the Gulf of Helsinki, since any aerial mission there could be undertaken from land.

As for the rest, sure, it would have been great to have all these carriers. Sometime by 1965 they may have finished the construction plan. Then all they need to do is occupy Britain to open the sea lanes out of the North Sea for all these fleets to sortie.

The whole Barbarossa adventure was based on the fact that the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe could not deliver the goods (victory over Britain) anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, it is also worth pointing out that the 1st-hand evidence by e.g. Halder and Warlimont talks about the attack on the SU in the context of the war with Britain, not in the context of a perceived actual threat by the SU against the Reich.

Recent evidence from Soviet archives does not change that.

All the best

Andreas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...