Could Germany have lost alone?

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panther Commander:

The Russian started showing real ability after FM Paulus started teaching them in their own military academy. Couple that with the information on what the German objectives were, where they were aimed and when they would start and you have Russian brilliance. I think I could win a battle or two if I knew the three w's.

Please. So how did they capture Paulus in the first place? Did he just happen to stroll into their lines while those idiot bumbling Red Army commanders were lamenting their own stupidity and his 6th Army soldiers were shooting themselves to help the Soviets out? What could Paulus conceivably tell them on February 1st 1943 that was of any interest in the later battles? That the Germans were gunning for the Caucasian oil? That they thought until November that they had broken the back of the Red Army? That they would have liked to occupy Moscow in 1941, and he had written a study on it then? That they really really, no really! wanted to win the war in the east, and oh wouldn't it have been nice to occupy Leningrad? Anything he knew then was very interesting for the Soviet historians, but not anyone else.

Edit to add - why do you actually think that anyone would like to take lessons from the erstwhile Quartermaster in OKH, who then managed to spectacularly lose his army by consistently underestimating his enemy? :confused: Unless of course he taught the Red Army commanders who really not to do it. </font>

[Sergei]

To show off and that way inspire the said officer corps? "You see, the feared German strategists aren't that clever after all!" And then Paulus would tell them that Hitler is an idiot and that Germany just can't win the war. Never underestimate the power of agitation and propaganda!

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

I guess I think the Soviet military wanted to know. IIRC he taught classes at the Frunze Military Academy. Why would they have him teaching their officer corps if they didn't think he had something to teach them?

Panther Commander

So, what did he actually teach them (and please no speculation, I can do that myself), and do you have any real info on the war-winning secrets he divulged?

[Grisha]

The Russian started showing real ability after FM Paulus started teaching them in their own military academy. Couple that with the information on what the German objectives were, where they were aimed and when they would start and you have Russian brilliance. I think I could win a battle or two if I knew the three w's.

Unfortunately, such a comment indicates a lack of knowledge in the development of the Red Army, and of Soviet operational art. I would suggest that you read Harrison's "Russian Way of War" (at least review this link) before you carry on further with such an opinion.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panther Commander:

Why would they have him teaching their officer corps if they didn't think he had something to teach them?

Panther Commander

So, what did he actually teach them (and please no speculation, I can do that myself), and do you have any real info on the war-winning secrets he divulged? </font>

[Mad Russian]

Andreas a thought does come to mind though. You are associated with the Red Army Studies site. What can you tell us about our FM's involvement at the academy. Surely you have run across his name in your studies.

Panther Commander

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Grisha:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Russian started showing real ability after FM Paulus started teaching them in their own military academy. Couple that with the information on what the German objectives were, where they were aimed and when they would start and you have Russian brilliance. I think I could win a battle or two if I knew the three w's.

Unfortunately, such a comment indicates a lack of knowledge in the development of the Red Army, and of Soviet operational art. I would suggest that you read Harrison's "Russian Way of War" (at least review this link) before you carry on further with such an opinion. </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

Andreas a thought does come to mind though. You are associated with the Red Army Studies site. What can you tell us about our FM's involvement at the academy. Surely you have run across his name in your studies.

Panther Commander

Well no - this is the first time I see Paulus mentioned as having any positive influence anywhere. Hence my incredulity. I take your word for him having lectured at Frunze - the make-up of the faculty there has never been a prime concern of mine. I just don't agree with the idea that that was in any way connected to the Red Army getting better at operations.

[von Lucke]

Could Germany have lost alone? Yes.

Could Germany have won alone? Yes. If Germany had only gone as far east as Poland, and declared peace after taking out Western Europe.

Sure, Stalin would have re-armed, and prolly sniped at the edges (taking the Baltic states, Bessarabia, Finland, etc). But in the over-all scheme of things, I think Uncle Joe would have been content to sit it out and let the Western Capitalists fight it out among themselves.

Germany only has to face down England. If Hitler can keep his ego in check enough not to go into Russia, he prolly can manage not to declare war on the USA after the Japanese do Pearl Harbor. This leaves Germany and England facing off in the West, while USA goes after Japan in the East. Two seperate wars. Eventually, England would sue for peace (especially if the Germans managed to push hard in the Med, and take Suez).

War over.

[Ant]

Germany only has to face down England. If Hitler can keep his ego in check enough not to go into Russia, he prolly can manage not to declare war on the USA after the Japanese do Pearl Harbor. This leaves Germany and England facing off in the West, while USA goes after Japan in the East. Two seperate wars. Eventually, England would sue for peace (especially if the Germans managed to push hard in the Med, and take Suez).

War over.

Whilst the whole forum seems to be on a fashion for 'What if' scenarios at the moment this is one that has always peaked my curiosity. Could Britain have beaten Germany alone?

Everybody always seems to assume that given no war with Russia or the US then Germany automatically wins....maybe it's just misplaced patriotism but I'm not so sure. It wasn't just Britain that Germany was fighting against but the whole British empire. Also, if we give the luxury of not fighting the US or Russia to Germany then Britain should also be afforded the luxury of not having to fight Japan either.

On balance it looks like stalemate. Germany never had any realistic chance of conducting an invasion of the UK and it would seem that Britain would be unlikely to have pulled off a D-day style operation on her own. So what might have happened?

[With Clusters]

Time to start a new thread, methinks

[s3333cr333tz]

Success breeds confidence. Smashing success breeds overconfidence. Overconfidence brings overextension. Overextension brings someones foot up your ass.

[Testudo]

The Russian started showing real ability after FM Paulus started teaching them in their own military academy. Couple that with the information on what the German objectives were, where they were aimed and when they would start and you have Russian brilliance. I think I could win a battle or two if I knew the three w's.

Paulus did give some lectures in the Frunze academy but only after the war.

The Soviet commanders were too busy destroying the German army to go listen to his lectures during the war.

[Andreas]

Thanks Testudo. Do you know what kind of lectures they were?

[Testudo]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Thanks Testudo. Do you know what kind of lectures they were?

Sharing german combat experience, explaining operational and tactical doctrine, explaining the work of the German general staff, the preparation of Barbarossa and German conduct of operations etc.

All the countries were doing this. Other German generals were writing essays for the US and British army.

BTW Paulus was still officialy a POW at the time.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Thanks Testudo. Do you know what kind of lectures they were?

I have been unable to find any references to his having taught at the academy now. I don't remember where I first read that. I did an internet search on him and could find no mention of his post-Stalingrad service to the Soviets. There are some references to his activities with the 'Free Germany' movement but nothiing about any teaching position.

I don't doubt that, I did read somewhere, that he taught at the academy, but if he was an important factor, there would be a considerable amount of literature on him. I can only assume, that he had a negligible effect, if any, on the Soviet art of war, and that my original position, of his being influential was incorrect.

IIRC, the classes he taught, were supposed to have been on the German military art of war. Such as breakthrough operations, deep strike operations, the logistics of those, etc.

However, seeing that he was unwilling to even say anything negative about the Third Reich, until after the attempt on Hitler's life in July 1944, I find it highly unlikely that he had any impact, whatsoever, on Soviet military doctrine. His sole impact, to the Soviet effort to that point, could only have been the morale boost he gave them, in capturing him in the first place.

I wish I could find the original statements on this. It would be interesting to me, to see what they were, now that I have done more research on the subject.

Panther Commander

[Andreas]

Thanks both of you.

Testudo, I think that technically the generals on the Halder project were also POW.

Panther Commander, have you read the article that Grisha linked earlier? It is excellent.

[Siege]

Let us not forget the geographics of it all either. One of the main strengths of Italy at the beginning of hostilities was their dominant location in the Med, and a very powerful surface navy. If not for the strike at Taranto harbor, the British would have been very hard pressed to resupply and fight to defend North Africa and Malta. Operations were difficult enough in the Med even with the Italian Navy being crippled, but had the Italians been able to deploy in strength... the entire North African campaign may have gone quite differently. The end result may well have been a triumphant Rommel taking control of the Middle Eastern oil. This would have left the UK even more dependant on American supplies.

But think of the situation with Italy being a Neutral power. There would intially be no significant Axis naval or air presence in the Med theatre other than dubious help from the Vichy. Greece and Crete would have been significantly easier to support provided that Germany even attacked them. A year round supply line to Russia would be possible either through the Black Sea, or overland through Turkey if needed. Logistically there is no benefit to Germany of letting Italy remain neutral.

But, it would have given the Allies a much more viable alternative in being able to attack through southern France. Right from the start the Royal Navy would have had to use far less assets to control the Med, which would have left them in a better position to support Norway when Germany attacked north. More material and equipment would be able to be diverted to the home front. The British Home Isles would have been far stronger, far earlier in the war rather than being stretched so thin. The downside is that the RAF and Commonwealth armies would have less opportunity to develop good armor and tactics, nor be able to gather as good intelligence on German equipment and tactics. It is also very possible that more equipment and personell may have been diverted to the Pacific Theatre, which may have further limited the Japanese advance.

From the way I see it, Germany absolutely needed Italy, maybe not for their combat prowess but definitely for their location and the ability to stage from Italy and Sicily. Now, here is a good question. What would have happened if Franco had made Spain into an open combatant for the Axis?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Siege:

What would have happened if Franco had made Spain into an open combatant for the Axis?

A new civil war?

[Siege]

quote:

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

Originally posted by Siege:

What would have happened if Franco had made Spain into an open combatant for the Axis?

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

A new civil war?

Very possible, I don't know the social or political situation in Spain in that era very well. Would have made things quite interesting for sure, at least it would have opened up a western front sooner if that were the case.

-Hans

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Thanks both of you.

Testudo, I think that technically the generals on the Halder project were also POW.

Panther Commander, have you read the article that Grisha linked earlier? It is excellent.

Only part of it, but what I read was excellent.

Panther Commander

[WindyCity]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Let's suppose that Germany never went to save Mussolini in the Balkans and Libya, Romanians never were in charge of 6th Army's flanks and the Japanese decided to wait till 1952 before bombing Hawaii. No fear about untrustworthy allies suing for separate peace. No spreading of industrial capacity to equip their primitive armies nor diverting resources against Murmansk. In that case, could Germany have lost the war?

Germany could never have been able to mantain/supply that size of a front period in 40 or 52 for that matter . Anyway as much as America was needed in helping the Brits out, we did not bail them out. Germany would have had a rifle,pitchfork,frying pan pointed at them from every bush if they invaded England , the Brits could and were holding there own.

[spartan1]

So many replies but so few based on time and geography.

The first key question is: Let's suppose that Germany never went to save Mussolini in the Balkans and Libya... In that case, could Germany have lost the war?

IF Germany did not lose precious weeks to attack Balkans (Yugoslavia and Greece down to Crete) would most probably have won the war!

Almost everybody seems to forget that operation Barbarossa was postponed due to the Balkans campaign and to Greek resistance. That resulted in Germans arriving to Moscow to late with very bad weather conditions (snow and freeze temparatures) so they did not capture Moscow although they almost entered the city.

The weather was so bad that in November in some cases the only effective weapon was hand grenades!

SO IF Germans have not attacked south they would have arrived in Moscow early in summer and Moscow and Stalin kaput.

[vulture]

On the flip side, capturing Moscow didn't do Napoleon much good, and the Russian army didn't mysteriously curl up and die at that point.

WWII was a different proposition than the Napolenoic wars though. But I still find it hard to believe that taking Msocow (assuming that that's what would have happened) would have made a significant difference on its own.

[Dennis Grant]

The problem is that so much depends on so much else.

Let's say that Germany leaves Italy out to dry, avoiding the Balkans. Barbarossa starts on schedule. Moscow is captured. Stalin surrenders.

OK, now what?

Would the Red Army respect that surrender? Would the Soviet Union remain intact?

Suppose, for example, immediately following Stalin's surrender, the Ukraine declares independance from the Soviet Union (a reasonable thing to happen) Does Ukraine attempt to liberate Russia, or do they declare neutrality? If they go neutral, does Hitler respect it, or does he invade ?

Etc etc etc.

DG