- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 78 Years Ago Today: Operation Barbarossa
Posted on 6/22/19 at 12:31 pm to 14&Counting
Posted on 6/22/19 at 12:31 pm to 14&Counting
In his autobiography, Churchill wrote that the night he learned of Pearl Harbor was the best night of sleep he had in two years. "We are going to win the war."
0
Posted on 6/22/19 at 1:24 pm to red sox fan 13
Posted on 6/22/19 at 1:36 pm to WWII Collector
quote:
Turning Guderian South to help the Southern Flank instead of taking Moscow was huge mistake...
I think too much is made of this decision and largely because of Guderian's (very persuasive and self-serving) memoirs. It cost maybe two weeks and helped bag entire Soviet armies in the Ukraine, significantly aiding in the security of the Southern Front. The Germans still had to 1) take Moscow and 2) hold Moscow. Does two weeks change that? I'm not sure that it does. The Soviets had also already begun massing forces from the East for the counterattack and the harsh winter was setting in regardless. The simple fact is that the Germans had underestimated the Soviet Union's military power and their ability to withstand enormous losses of men, material, and territory. They weren't alone in this as the West also thought the Soviets were done for as late as November.
Posted on 6/22/19 at 3:19 pm to 14&Counting
Der Dummkopf never should have fought The Battle of Britain, it was unnecessary. He had won in the West, England wasn't going to do anything.
All those aircraft and resources should have gone East. If I do anything I make sure nothing gets through to Murmansk once the Allies start trying to supply Uncle Joe. U Boats concentrate on anything trying to get up north and maritime aircraft out of Norway, I starve Russia.
Everything I have goes into taking Moscow and St Petersburg, primarily Moscow..I try to knock them out of the war early before turning south
All those aircraft and resources should have gone East. If I do anything I make sure nothing gets through to Murmansk once the Allies start trying to supply Uncle Joe. U Boats concentrate on anything trying to get up north and maritime aircraft out of Norway, I starve Russia.
Everything I have goes into taking Moscow and St Petersburg, primarily Moscow..I try to knock them out of the war early before turning south
Posted on 6/22/19 at 3:22 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
The amazing thing to me is the sheer size and brutality of the Eastern Front. As you said, there's been nothing like it before or since.
Unless we nuke each other into an oblivion, lose all our technology, and then build it all back up, it will be the largest front in human history. Satellites make it impossible for another Operation Barbarossa.
Posted on 6/22/19 at 3:47 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
The Soviets had also already begun massing forces from the East for the counterattack and the harsh winter was setting in regardless.
This is where the Axis and Allies differed. The Allies actually supported one another, the Axis had very different war aims. Had Japan attacked the Soviet Union in concert with the Germans, it's likely Stalin has to hold those Siberian divisions in the east to keep the Japanese army at bay. Those were 60 fresh divisions the Japanese could have pinned down for several crucial months.
Posted on 6/22/19 at 4:45 pm to red sox fan 13
I had a chance to speak with Stephen Ambrose and, I agree with what he told me: once Barbarossa was launched on 22 June 1941, Germany did not have sufficient military strength and economic power to defeat the Soviet Union, period.
Keeping Guderian aimed at Moscow would not have worked. Not only were the German logistics not able to support a thrust to Moscow at that point in the campaign, but, also, those 665,000 Soviet troops that Guderian and Kleist captured would have thrust into Guderian's right flank as he reached for Moscow. So, that would not have worked.
Launching Barbarossa a few weeks early also would not have worked because the spring rains and mud were especially late to dry up in 1941. A mid-May start to Barbarossa would have triggered Stalin's total war mobilization more early while the German tanks, wheeled vehicles and horse carts bogged down in the mud. The muddy, slow moving German pincers would have failed to encircle Bialystok pocket and those Soviet troops would have escaped. Early mud and driving through it would have caused more wear and tear on the German tanks and burned more fuel. Spare parts and fuel were finite constraints, so, a muddy early start would have meant that less of both would be there in the summer and fall. So, an early start would not have worked.
Once we start the clock on 22 June 1941 with Barbarossa, and we have the same geo-political situation as it actually existed at that time, Dr. Ambrose contended that Germany did not possess the military and economic strength to defeat the Soviet Union, NO MATTER WHAT military decisions the Germans made inside the Soviet Union.
I've studied that campaign for a long time and, although I used to disagree with him, I now realize that he was and is right.
Other hypothetical scenarios outside of those parameters remain valid.
What if Japan had also invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941? I don't know. The Soviets kicked Japan's arse in 1939 at the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, so, I doubt that Stalin was afraid of Japan's army, but . . .
What if Hitler had never launched the Battle of Britain? Good thought, because due to the Battle of Britain, German invaded the Soviet Union with fewer combat aircraft than they had before the Battle of Britain. That's because the German economy was not able to rebuild the Luftwaffe fast enough after the losses over Britain. A stronger Luftwaffe available for Barbarossa would have helped the Germans.
What if in 1938 or 1939, Germany had begun an intense and skilled commitment to Total War mobilization of the entire German economy? We know from Albert Speer's book that nothing like this occurred until after Stalingrad, which was too late. We also know from his book that when Speer took over the Ministry of Armaments in Feb, 1942, the German weapons factories were still operating on peacetime hours and with a peacetime mind-set of the industry leaders.
Early Total War mobilization of the entire German economy would have made Germany a more dangerously strong enemy, that's for sure. But that scenario is totally fantastical because Adolf Hitler did not intend to launch World War Two on 1 September 1939. He was shocked when Britain and France declared war over Poland. He was sure that he could crush Poland and then return to peace.
As such, Hitler had to IMPROVISE his way through fighting a World War that began before he expected, and, it seems to me that Hitler never stopped IMPROVISING his way through the war, as he jumped from one move to the next and reacted to geo-political events that he did not expect.
He did not expect Britain to insist on war after France fell. He expected the Soviet Union to collapse within 4 or 5 weeks. He had not the slightest clue WRT the military might that the USA could muster.
As such, it is difficult to postulate and speculate what WW2 would have been like had Hitler been a shrewd and long-term planner, because he was neither. Hitler improvised his way through the war after it unexpectedly began as a World War when he invaded Poland.
Keeping Guderian aimed at Moscow would not have worked. Not only were the German logistics not able to support a thrust to Moscow at that point in the campaign, but, also, those 665,000 Soviet troops that Guderian and Kleist captured would have thrust into Guderian's right flank as he reached for Moscow. So, that would not have worked.
Launching Barbarossa a few weeks early also would not have worked because the spring rains and mud were especially late to dry up in 1941. A mid-May start to Barbarossa would have triggered Stalin's total war mobilization more early while the German tanks, wheeled vehicles and horse carts bogged down in the mud. The muddy, slow moving German pincers would have failed to encircle Bialystok pocket and those Soviet troops would have escaped. Early mud and driving through it would have caused more wear and tear on the German tanks and burned more fuel. Spare parts and fuel were finite constraints, so, a muddy early start would have meant that less of both would be there in the summer and fall. So, an early start would not have worked.
Once we start the clock on 22 June 1941 with Barbarossa, and we have the same geo-political situation as it actually existed at that time, Dr. Ambrose contended that Germany did not possess the military and economic strength to defeat the Soviet Union, NO MATTER WHAT military decisions the Germans made inside the Soviet Union.
I've studied that campaign for a long time and, although I used to disagree with him, I now realize that he was and is right.
Other hypothetical scenarios outside of those parameters remain valid.
What if Japan had also invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941? I don't know. The Soviets kicked Japan's arse in 1939 at the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, so, I doubt that Stalin was afraid of Japan's army, but . . .
What if Hitler had never launched the Battle of Britain? Good thought, because due to the Battle of Britain, German invaded the Soviet Union with fewer combat aircraft than they had before the Battle of Britain. That's because the German economy was not able to rebuild the Luftwaffe fast enough after the losses over Britain. A stronger Luftwaffe available for Barbarossa would have helped the Germans.
What if in 1938 or 1939, Germany had begun an intense and skilled commitment to Total War mobilization of the entire German economy? We know from Albert Speer's book that nothing like this occurred until after Stalingrad, which was too late. We also know from his book that when Speer took over the Ministry of Armaments in Feb, 1942, the German weapons factories were still operating on peacetime hours and with a peacetime mind-set of the industry leaders.
Early Total War mobilization of the entire German economy would have made Germany a more dangerously strong enemy, that's for sure. But that scenario is totally fantastical because Adolf Hitler did not intend to launch World War Two on 1 September 1939. He was shocked when Britain and France declared war over Poland. He was sure that he could crush Poland and then return to peace.
As such, Hitler had to IMPROVISE his way through fighting a World War that began before he expected, and, it seems to me that Hitler never stopped IMPROVISING his way through the war, as he jumped from one move to the next and reacted to geo-political events that he did not expect.
He did not expect Britain to insist on war after France fell. He expected the Soviet Union to collapse within 4 or 5 weeks. He had not the slightest clue WRT the military might that the USA could muster.
As such, it is difficult to postulate and speculate what WW2 would have been like had Hitler been a shrewd and long-term planner, because he was neither. Hitler improvised his way through the war after it unexpectedly began as a World War when he invaded Poland.
This post was edited on 6/22/19 at 5:07 pm
Posted on 6/22/19 at 6:23 pm to Champagne
Hitler didn't have a choice. He was going to have to deal with Stalin sooner or later. He had to go for broke.
As I said earlier, the Battle of Britain was a waste of resources, he had won the war in the West for at least a year or two. England was in no position to do anything.
Cut off Murmansk and throw everything at Moscow/St Petersburg. No other theater matters, EVERYTHING must go to Russia. No south turn, everything Germany has to defeat Zhukov and take Moscow.
Strip everyplace, send everything, all supplies, all out, do or die. If you defeat Zhukov's armies take Moscow and probably St Petersburg in 1941, Stalin(who already sees him as a threat) probably has him shot and has another purge, killing off another bunch of competent generals and maybe costing himself the war.
THEN turn south and grab the oil.
As I said earlier, the Battle of Britain was a waste of resources, he had won the war in the West for at least a year or two. England was in no position to do anything.
Cut off Murmansk and throw everything at Moscow/St Petersburg. No other theater matters, EVERYTHING must go to Russia. No south turn, everything Germany has to defeat Zhukov and take Moscow.
Strip everyplace, send everything, all supplies, all out, do or die. If you defeat Zhukov's armies take Moscow and probably St Petersburg in 1941, Stalin(who already sees him as a threat) probably has him shot and has another purge, killing off another bunch of competent generals and maybe costing himself the war.
THEN turn south and grab the oil.
This post was edited on 6/22/19 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 6/22/19 at 6:25 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
This is where the Axis and Allies differed. The Allies actually supported one another, the Axis had very different war aims. Had Japan attacked the Soviet Union in concert with the Germans, it's likely Stalin has to hold those Siberian divisions in the east to keep the Japanese army at bay. Those were 60 fresh divisions the Japanese could have pinned down for several crucial months.
The Japanese 100% did not see the big picture and were obsessed with their looming oil shortage. I agree with you though, had the Germans and Japanese actually coordinated and agreed on a strategy regarding the USSR at this stage in 1941, the war could have been radically different.
Posted on 6/22/19 at 6:30 pm to ChewyDante
The Japanese were not equipped to fight the Soviet tank armies. But a feint against Vladivostok or the Siberian railway could have held the Siberian divisions.
Another whopper I think they made late in the war was The Bulge. Could not all that force have been put to better use on the Eastern Front? Push the Reds back away from home with a surprise winter counterattack?
Another whopper I think they made late in the war was The Bulge. Could not all that force have been put to better use on the Eastern Front? Push the Reds back away from home with a surprise winter counterattack?
This post was edited on 6/22/19 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 6/22/19 at 6:53 pm to antibarner
quote:
The Japanese were not equipped to fight the Soviet tank armies. But a feint against Vladivostok or the Siberian railway could have held the Siberian divisions.
That wouldn't have been the goal nor necessary. The Germans could do the legwork. Simply forcing the Soviets to keep forces in the East would have changed the war dramatically. I've never read anything that suggested the Japanese were ever even remotely interested in assisting in the war against the USSR though, so it's rather moot.
quote:
Another whopper I think they made late in the war was The Bulge. Could not all that force have been put to better use on the Eastern Front? Push the Reds back away from home with a surprise winter counterattack?
Yes, had the resources of that offensive been put towards purely defensive and limited counteroffensive measures on either front they would have been far more effective. That being said, they wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war aside from inflicting greater casualties and extending the timeline. The offensive was intended to seize Antwerp, reverse the gains the Allies had made since the breakout, and potentially force a settlement with the West. It was an all or nothing shot in the dark as the strategic situation was truly not in doubt at that point.
Posted on 6/22/19 at 7:33 pm to ChewyDante
No , they don't change the outcome. But they might let the Western Allies meet the Russians at the Oder instead of the Elbe. Which as it turns out would have made a lot more Germans a lot happier.
This post was edited on 6/22/19 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 6/22/19 at 7:54 pm to antibarner
quote:
No , they don't change the outcome. But they might let the Western Allies meet the Russians at the Oder instead of the Elbe. Which as it turns out would have made a lot more Germans a lot happier.
Totally out of touch with reality. You think the regime was interested in what territory the Soviets controlled versus the Allies after they were forced into utter capitulation? The Allies refused to accept a surrender that excluded the Soviets.
Not to mention certain territorial boundaries had already been established for post-war occupation anyway, but the notion that the Germans should put more assets in fighting the Russians so that the Allies could continue killing and vanquishing German forces deeper into Germany and thus perhaps sparing some Germans from Soviet occupation is rather absurd.
Posted on 6/22/19 at 9:14 pm to antibarner
quote:
Hitler didn't have a choice. He was going to have to deal with Stalin sooner or later. He had to go for broke.
He didn't have a choice and he had to go for broke, so, instead of mobilizing his economy for total war, say, in 1939, he had to roll the dice in 1941 and hope that the Soviet Union collapsed in 4 or 5 weeks. Like I said, he was improvising and reacting to events with no long-term plan.
quote:
As I said earlier, the Battle of Britain was a waste of resources
Hitler didn't know that. He was improvising again. He thought that the British would make peace after getting bombed, despite the fact that the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force with no strategic bombers in their inventory. He was improvising and rolling the dice. That was his modus operandi.
quote:
Cut off Murmansk and throw everything at Moscow/St Petersburg.
What are you talking about? The Germans DID throw everything that they had at Russia. Cut off Murmansk? With what Navy? With what Army? The German Army never got close to Murmansk and even if they did they'd have to walk there because none of their tanks or vehicles could have been supplied or fueled that far.
Moscow was a huge urban complex even back in 1941. It would have had to be encircled to be taken, but, again, the German logistical capabilities would not have been able to supply those encircling spearhead mechanized units.
Throw everything at Leningrad? It was a strong fortress and the German Army was a "blitzkrieg" army of maneuver, not suited for siege warfare and urban warfare. The Germans didn't have the military strength to take Leningrad in 1941, even if Hitler had tried, which he didn't because his plan was to just starve it out.
quote:
No other theater matters, EVERYTHING must go to Russia.
That's what Hitler did. It was MAX commitment to Barbarossa. So maximum was the commitment that many German Army units were equipped with inferior captured French Army weapons. And the German logistical train used many motor vehicles that were captured from enemies and manufactured all over Europe. That's why spare parts was such a big problem.
quote:
No south turn,
Guderian had to turn South for two reasons: 1) he could not go further East at that time because he had out distandced his logistical supply train. So he had to make a lateral turn to the South. 2) He could not leave 665,000 Soviet troops on an open right flank and he did not have the troops to cover that right flank AND take Moscow. Period, end of story. I've covered this before.
quote:
everything Germany has to defeat Zhukov and take Moscow. Strip everyplace, send everything, all supplies, all out, do or die.
The Germans didn't run out of supplies in 1941. The supplies were sitting stockpiled at points hundreds of miles West of the front lines because the logistical train had broken down and could not bring the supplies to the front line units. I've covered this before.
quote:
If you defeat Zhukov's armies take Moscow and probably St Petersburg in 1941,
For reasons I have described here before, this was impossible. Germany did not possess the military and economic power to take Moscow and Leningrad in 1941, no matter how one might move the chess pieces differently around the board. The Germans did about as well as they could have done in 1941. They had NO idea how strong Stalin's regime was both economically and militarily.
quote:
THEN turn south and grab the oil.
When the Germans turned south for the oil in 1942, the supply lines were so very long that the logistical system broke down and could not supply the front line units with sufficient fuel and ammo. Notice a pattern here? The German logistical system could not supply the fighting units with sufficient amounts of ammo and fuel in both 1941 and 1942.
When your facing fortified lines of Russians and your artillery is almost out of ammo, even the bravest soldiers are not going to breach that defense line. The Russian soldier was very tough and needed to be blasted out of his hole. If you didn't have sufficient High Explosives to blast him out, then you were not going to dig him out of his holes.
Stephen Ambrose was and is right: German was economically and militarily too weak and Soviet Russia was too strong. Hitler's military solution to the strategic problem of the Soviet Union was to blitz them and beat them by 1 August 1941. When that didn't happen, Hitler had no back-up strategy.
This post was edited on 6/22/19 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 6/22/19 at 9:19 pm to red sox fan 13
Weird coincidence ... I was reading one of my Dad's old aviation books full of short articles today ...a short piece by a Luftwaffe pilot about his missions on ths first day of Operation Barbarossa.
Posted on 6/22/19 at 10:03 pm to Champagne
quote:
Stephen Ambrose was and is right: German was economically and militarily too weak and Soviet Russia was too strong.
A good part of their strength was supplied by the US.
Posted on 6/22/19 at 10:40 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
A good part of their strength was supplied by the US.
Absolutely, especially Trucks! Many many US made trucks and high quality tires.
I don't know whether the Soviet Union could manufacture 100 octane aviation gasoline, but, if they couldn't, the USA would have supplied that to them, just as the USA supplied Great Britain with 100 octane aviation gasoline in 1940 when the USA was "neutral" (wink wink).
Posted on 6/23/19 at 12:09 am to ChewyDante
This post was edited on 6/23/19 at 1:04 am
Posted on 6/23/19 at 12:21 am to Champagne
Hitler had the means to cut off Murmansk. Britain was essentially out of the war, at least for a good long while, in 1940. The Battle of Britain was a waste of resources, and, pay attention, so was THE BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC.
Commit the Kriegsmarine to choking off the USSR. All U Boats operate to stop convoys bound for Murmansk. Battleships and Cruisers the same. Maritime aircraft patrol out of Norway. With what navy? He had Bismarck that was wasted. Prinz Eugen. He had U Boats. He had Maritime Aircraft. Use them up north with air cover.
Yes you are in a 2 front war, but you commit everything to make it a one front war. Sure it's speculation , but don't tell me it could not have been done.
Commit the Kriegsmarine to choking off the USSR. All U Boats operate to stop convoys bound for Murmansk. Battleships and Cruisers the same. Maritime aircraft patrol out of Norway. With what navy? He had Bismarck that was wasted. Prinz Eugen. He had U Boats. He had Maritime Aircraft. Use them up north with air cover.
Yes you are in a 2 front war, but you commit everything to make it a one front war. Sure it's speculation , but don't tell me it could not have been done.
Posted on 6/23/19 at 12:38 am to antibarner
LINK
An interesting chapter from a Book by Bevin Alexander..How Hitler Could have Won WW2 Erich Raeder Admiral advocating a Mediteranean strategy for Germany, and the gentleman mentions making it hard for the Allies to supply the Russians through Murmansk because of German naval forces in Norway. Now this is the admiral in charge of the German Navy talking about that, I would think he would know something more about his capabilities than you or I.
You trot your expert out, ill bring in mine. An interesting strategy, the Admiral would have backed Rommel in Africa it appears.
An interesting chapter from a Book by Bevin Alexander..How Hitler Could have Won WW2 Erich Raeder Admiral advocating a Mediteranean strategy for Germany, and the gentleman mentions making it hard for the Allies to supply the Russians through Murmansk because of German naval forces in Norway. Now this is the admiral in charge of the German Navy talking about that, I would think he would know something more about his capabilities than you or I.
You trot your expert out, ill bring in mine. An interesting strategy, the Admiral would have backed Rommel in Africa it appears.
This post was edited on 6/23/19 at 1:13 am
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News